Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Tuncay Alankus Vs. the C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT590; 2005(83)DRJ407

R.S. Sodhi, J: CRL.M.A.4005/2005:1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.CRL.REV.P.126/2005 & CRL.M.A. Nos. 2192, 4005/2005:2. This revision petition seeks to challenge orders of the Special Judge dated 11th October, 2004, whereby the learned Judge has restricted the witness of the defense. It also challenges order dated 17th November,2004 whereby the learned Judge has while allowing witnesses to be examined by video conference directed the costs thereof to be borne by the accused. It further goes on to challenge the order dated 6th December, 2004 whereby the time schedule was indicated, failing which the defense evidence will be closed.3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 11th December, 2004 is working hardship, inasmuch as the case of the defense is being closed without giving him sufficient opportunity to lead essential and proper evidence in his defense. He submits to curtail the evidence which is otherwise essential to prove ...

S. Ashraj HasnaIn Rizvi Vs. Embassay of Islamic Republic of Iran and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT537; 2005(84)DRJ375; [2005(106)FLR1198]; (2005)IIILLJ719Del

Vijender Jain, J. 1 .As the Ministry of External Affairs has already granted consent to the appellant to institute the suit, no useful purpose will be served to have respondent No. 2/Ministry of External Affairs as a party in the proceedings. Mr.Munjal says that no relief is sought against respondent No. 2 and, thereforee, the name of respondent No. 2 may be deleted from the array of the parties. We order accordingly. 2. Admit.3. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,00,868/- with future interest. The appellant laid his claim against respondent No. 1 on the following alleged facts:The appellant was appointed as an English Typist by the Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran, respondent No. 1 herein, on the monthly salary of Rs. 1,800/- per month with effect from 1.10.1989. No written communication in respect of appointment was given as per the conven...

Shivalik Rasayan Ltd./Gharda Chemicals Vs. Pesto Chem India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT431

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This company petition was originally filed by M/s. Shivalik Rasain Ltd. seeking winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent owed a sum of Rs. 6,21,740/- which the respondent was unable to pay. Petition was admitted on 5th October, 1998 and it was ordered that citations be published in the newspapers Statesman (English), Jansatta (Hindi) and Delhi Gazette for 8th March, 1999. These citations were duly published. After the publication of citations M/s. Gharda Chemicals Limited filed CA 530/99 stating that it was also a creditor and seeking substitution in the petition. This application was allowed vide order dated 30th April, 2003. It may be noted that after the publication of citations respondent started making payments to the original petitioner and the claim of the original petitioner was ultimately settled by the respondent company to its satisfaction. thereforee, while allowing CA 530/99of M/s. Gharda Chemicals, the applicant was directed ...

American Express Travel Related Services Co. Inc. Vs. Atn Arihant Inte ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT582

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiff is engaged, inter alia, in the business of issuing Travellers' Cheques of different foreign currencies while the Defendant is a licensed full fledged money changer.2. The parties admittedly entered into an Agreement dated 14th February, 1996. The Agreement is called a Trust Agreement G?' Full Liability. In terms of the Agreement between the parties, the Plaintiff was required to supply Travellers' Cheques to the Defendant who was to receive and hold in trust these Travellers' Cheques. Thereafter, upon sale of the Travellers' Cheques, the Defendant was required to remit the sale proceeds to the Plaintiff but in respect of unsold Travellers' Cheques, the Defendantas required to hold the same in trust until they were returned in terms of the Agreement between the parties.3. Between August, 1997 and December, 1997, the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant a large number of Travellers' Cheques but, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant neither remitted ...

Chandra Kamal Corporation and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC367

1. These Stay applications and appeals are directed against the Adjudication Order-in-Original No. MP (Dem-77/2003) and (13/2003) 1 and 2 of 2005 dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the said order has been passed without jurisdiction and is not maintainable for that reason. The learned Counsel has produced a copy of the Order No. 24/2004-Central Excise dated 23.11.2004 issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi reassigning the adjudication of this case to Commissioner Kanpur in support of his contention.3. However, learned representative of the Revenue produced before us a Fax dated 4.7.2005 from the Commissioner of Kanpur informing that he had not received the copy of the Order No. 24/2004-Central Excise dated 23rd November, 2004 under which jurisdiction was reassigned to him. To the same effect is the letter-dated 22.6.2005 of Commissioner of Allahabad.4. In view of ...

R.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The common issue is involved, therefore, the appeals are being taken up together.2. Appellants made import of an old and second hand photocopier machine. The price declared by the appellant as per invoice is not accepted by the Customs authority. The goods were examined by the Chartered Engineer of M/s. Moody International (India) Pvt. Ltd. As per the Chartered Engineer's certificate, the price of the goods is different from the declared by the appellants. The adjudicating authority rejected the price declared by the appellants as well as per the certificate issued by Chartered Engineer and determined the price by adopting the manufacturer value and applying the principle of depreciation and ordered the assessment of the goods. The adjudicating authority also confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the goods were not second hand capital goods and were imported in violation of Foreign Trade Policy.3. The contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal...

S.S. International Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC386; 123(2005)DLT287

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These are two cross suits. First suit is by M/s. S.S. International as the plaintiff against the Union of India for recovery of Rs. 5412341.85p. along with interest. Second suit is in the nature of counter claim filed by the Union of India against M/s. S.S. International. The respective claims arise out of same transaction and both the parties are alleging breach of contract on the part of other. Facts of both the suits may be noted to understand the controversy involved.2. Suit No. 587/1982 Plaintiff, S.S. International, (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSI' for short) is a duly registered partnership firm with Sh. Sudhir Kumar Gupta as one of the registered partners who has signed and verified the pleadings on behalf of the firm. It is stated that on or about 25th November, 1980 the plaintiff entered into a contract of sale with the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'UOI' for short). UOI had floated tenders for sale and supply of 96 MT of Kishmish and SS...

Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT526; 2005(83)DRJ301

Vikramajit Sen, J. CM No. 7859/2005Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.WP(C) No. 10700/2005 & CM No. 7858/20051. In this Petition a challenge has been laid to the Demand dated 13.6.2005 of Rs. 4,65,08,333/- on the subject of - 'Recovery of overcharged amount under Para 13 of DPCO'95 read with section 7A of Essential Commodities Act' 1955-Cloxacillin based formulations.' 2. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs . Cynamide India Ltd. : [1987]2SCR841 , 'It is primarily from the consumer public's point of view that the government is expected to make its enquiry. The need of the consumer public is to be ascertained and making the drug available to them at a fair price is what it is all about. ... In fixing the price of a bulk drug, the government is expressly required by the Order to take into account the average cost of production of such bulk drug manufactured by 'an efficient manufacturer' and allow a reasonable return on 'net worth'. For this purpose...

Lal Bahadur Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT545; 2005(84)DRJ581

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. These revision petitions are directed against the judgment dated 21st November, 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the conviction of the petitioners but given them the benefit of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released them on probation for a period of one-and-a-half years on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court.2. The matter has been pending in this court for a long time and has come up for hearing today. It has been shown on the regular board repeatedly and when called out no one cared to assist the court on behalf of the petitioner to dispose of the petition. This trend of not appearing in regular matters is causing grave concern and is primarily responsible for building up backlog and delay in decision of cases. The matter has been discussed in open court. Counsel have been requested time and aga...

Vipul Kumar Mittal Vs. Varishtha Leasing (i) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]129CompCas767(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT206

Manju Goel, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint bearing No. 726/1 of 2003 qua the petitioner.2. The petitioner Vipul Kumar Mittal is accused No. 4 in the complaint filed by the respondent M/s Varishtha Leasing (International) Ltd. In the complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the `Act'), the petitioner is shown as the Director of the accused No. 1, M/s Ahaar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged in the complaint that all the accused including the petitioner approached the complainant company for a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs for a period of 3 months, that in pursuance of the request made by them the loan was extended from time to time, that cheques towards interest issued in the meantime were dishonoured several times and in lieu of dishonoured cheques fresh cheques were issued and that eventually the loan along with interest was repaid by cheques bearing No. 181914, 181915 and 181916 for Rs. 75,050/- Rs. 25,...