Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 10 of about 207 results (0.010 seconds)Darshan Singh Vs. Ramesh Chander Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT559
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.Crl. M. 8672/2004 in Crl.M.C, 1594/20021. For the reasons stated in the application the application is allowed. Orders dated 14.10.2004 and 16.1.2004 are recalled. Crl.M.C. 1594/2004 is restored to its original number.Application stands disposed of.Crl.M.C. 1594/2002Petitioner, appearing in person, submits that his father Sh. Hari Singh was a tenant in the premises bearing No. 12A/39, W.E.A. Karol Bagh, New Delhi, consisting of one room, kitchen, toilet and Verandah, for more than thirty years. On 8.9.1997, he along with his sister Kartar Kaur went to Haridwar to perform the last rites of their father. In their absence the accused persons broke open the lock of the said premises, removed the articles belonging to his father. They took time to compromise the matter, but without result. Ultimately, complaint in this regard was filed on 11.8.1998, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 8.2.2000, dismissed the complaint. The revision petition against the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Chander Bhardwaj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 125(2005)DLT710; I(2006)DMC60; 2005(83)DRJ295
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1.2. The marriage was not too happy. FIR in question has been registered on the complaint made by the wife alleging dowry harassment at the hands of her husband.3. Two children have been born to the petitioner and the complainant. The children are with the complainant.4. It is not in dispute that the complainant is residing in the matrimonial house, but in a separate part thereof. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 is paying Rs. 4000 p.m. to the complainant towards maintenance for the two children. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is not spending any amount towards water and electricity consumed by her as also on the maintenance of the portion of the house in her possession.5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.6. I have perused the FIR which is the usual story of an unhappy marriage. ...
Tag this Judgment!G.M. Pens International Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Sea-port)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT180TriDel
1. The issue under reference to this Larger Bench is the Central Excise classification of two inks 'Permanent Marker Ink' and 'Dry Wiper Marker Ink'. Both the inks are used in marker pens. The difference is that writing/marking with Permanent Marker Ink, leaves lasting impression, while writing or marking done with Dry Wiper Marker Ink can be removed by mere rubbing with a duster, just like writing with chalk.2. The appellants contend that classification of these marker inks would be under sub-heading 3215.10 as "writing ink' and would attract duty at NIL rate. Revenue authorities have held that the classification would be under 3215.90 as 'other' (inks) attracting duty at 16%. The controversy has arisen in regard to imported consignments, inasmuch as imported goods attract additional duty of customs at rates equivalent to Central Excise duty on goods manufactured in India.3. Before we go into the arguments of both sides, we may first note the competing tariff heading:----------------...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Industrial Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT513TriDel
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22-9-2001 premises of M/s.Modern Industrial Enterprises, A-58, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'MIE') and of M/s.Florida Electrical Industries Ltd., B-147, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'FEIL') were searched by the officers of Revenue. The premises of dealers were also searched and during search certain private records were recovered from M/s. MIE and also from the premises of M/s. FEIL. On the basis of private record recovered from the premises, a show cause notice dated 25-3-2003 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I demanding duty of Rs. 1,65,64,008/- in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by M/s. MIE and M/s. FEIL without payment of Central Excise duty and for appropriation of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by ap...
Tag this Judgment!Al-sanat and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT34TriDel
2. The applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal. In view of the reasons explained in the application, the delay is condoned.3. The applicant, i.e., Official Liquidator, has filed this application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty. The Company is wound up and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has appointed the Official Liquidator. As we find that the Company is already wound up and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has appointed Official Liquidator, therefore, keeping in view of the hardship, the pre-deposit of amount of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal. The Stay Petition is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Dhupar Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT37TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue relates to the denial of the credit to the appellants on the goods (inputs) which were allegedly burnt in fire in their factory.2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record it is clear that the appellants who were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, availed credit, on the inputs but those inputs were never utilised by them in the manufacture of the final product. They rather informed the Deptt. that the same were burnt in fire in the factory. But their claim for remission of duty in respect of those inputs was rejected by the competent authority. They did not challenge the correctness of that order before the higher forum.Therefore, demand of credit amount of Rs. 2,28,993/- wrongly availed, had been rightly confirmed against them.3. For having utilised the credit wrongly, they are liable to pay interest also in terms of Section 11AB of the Act from the date of utilisation, till the recovery. Therefore, I do not find...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Wati and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT168; 2005(83)DRJ26
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who vide his order dated 11th March, 2003, has held the petitioners guilty under Section 323/34 IPC and further by his order dated 17th March, 2003 has sentenced the petitioners to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.2000/- each.2. Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, states that this is a case which has gone on for more than 20 years and majority of the petitioners have already become senior citizens. He also submits that the compensation has already been paid and that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners in this case are given the benefit under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Counsel for respondent no.2/complainant, on the other hand, contends that he would only be satisfied if the petitioners are sent to jail. He is prepared to return twice the amount of compensation awarded. He submits that the complainant has...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT362
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dismissing the appeal arising out of the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate upholding the conviction of the petitioner and sentencing him to undergo R.I. For two years with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- each under Section 120-B, 409, 467, 471 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but submits that this is a fit case where accused can be admitted to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the incident took place as far back as on 1985.3. The petitioner has been facing the ordeal of trial for over 20 years and that he has now settled down as useful citizen and that there has been no untoward incident nor any complaint against him. He further submits that the petitioner has been on bail since 17th October, 2000 after suffering incarceration. Learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Dutt Sharma and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT137; II(2005)DMC426
R.S. Sodhi J. Crl.M.A.855/2002:1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.CRL.REV.P.681/2002 and CRL.M.A.854/2002:2. Criminal revision petition 681/2002 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal revision 76/99, whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment and order dated 14.5.2002 has reversed the order of the trial court dated 04.08.1997, discharging all the accused and directed framing of charge under Section 498-A/406 IPC.3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:-'.....2. The case was registered against the respondents herein by the Ashok Vihar Police Station on the complaint of Mrs. Poonam Sharma, who has stated in her complaint that she was a widow and her marriage with her previous husband hardly lasted for months and she did not have any issue from this marriage. She was again married to Sunil Dutt Sharma, a divorce on 1.6.91 through advertisement in the news-paper ...
Tag this Judgment!Satya Pal Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT678
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The limited controversy arising in this proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the petitioner can claim the benefit of his past service with the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (hereafter called 'IVRI'), an affiliate/body controlled by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereafter called 'ICAR') for the purpose of reckoning eligibility, for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).2. The first respondent issued an advertisement inter alia, calling for applications, for the post of Junior Engineer on 23rd July, 2003, in the MCD. The age prescribed for the post was 27 years. The relevant condition with regard to relaxation of age reads as follows:'3. Age relaxation--Candidates belonging to SC/ST are eligible for age relaxation for 5 years and candidates belonging to OBC for 3 years. Candidates belonging belonging to categories such as Ex-Servicemen, Govt. Servants, PH/Widowe...
Tag this Judgment!