Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 3 of about 207 results (0.014 seconds)Mr. H.K. Kapoor, S/O Sh. Thakur Dass Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi), ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ600
Swatanter Kumar, J. CM No. 5964/2005 (condensation of delay)1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioner praying for condensation of delay in filing the review application (Review Application No. 134/2005) wherein the petitioner has prayed for reviewing the order of the Division Bench dated 14th December, 2004 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 1470/1986 vide which the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.2. The order of the Division Bench was passed on 14th December, 2004. The applicant submitted his application for obtaining certified copy of the order on 6th January, 2005 which was ready on 17th January, 2005, but delivery thereof was given on 18th January, 2005, while the present review application was filed in the Registry of this court for the first time on 16th April, 2005. In the application for condensation of delay, no reasons have been given as to why the application was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT315; 2005(83)DRJ605
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 117/2001 is directed against the order dated 13.11.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 11/1988, whereby the learned Judge has returned a finding that the guilt of A2 and A3 (respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein), for offence under Section 304 (Part I) r/w Section 34 IPC has been brought home and A2 and A3 are held guilty under Section 304(1) IPC. The guilt of all other accused persons for remaining charges has not been proved, thus they are acquitted.2. The prosecution's case as noted down by the Additional Sessions Judge is as follows:-'The prosecution case indicates PW24 SI (now Inspector) RK Meena, the Investigating Officer (IO) on arrival at the scene with constable Jai Bhagwan found a large number of stones and pebbles lying on the road in front of the Bathak of Roomala. Ranjit Singh s/o Prem Raj was present at the scene. The IO recorded his statement as per Ex.PW1/A, whereupon the IO made his endorsement vide...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Prakash Goyal and anr. Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ668
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule has been issued in writ petition on 22nd January, 2003. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises on account of delay in sanction of building plans in respect of Plot Nos.20 and 21, A-Block, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi. This petition sought quashing of letter dated 5th August, 1998 issued by the MCD rejecting the petitioners' permission to construct the plot Nos.21 and 22 in the Mansarovar Garden Residential Scheme or in alternative a direction to the MCD to sanction the building plans forthwith and not later than 60 days.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had applied for sanction of the building plans on 2nd June, 1998. The building plans were not being sanctioned in view of a letter of 13th July, 1998 issued by the Principal Secretary, MCD on the ground of the non-sanctioning of the plans of colony at Mansarovar Garde...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT706; 2005(83)DRJ629
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This writ petition is directed against the rejection of sanction of lay out plan for the subdivision of the plot No. 6, Under Hill Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi, under Section 335 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The writ petition prayed for the following reliefs:'(a) Direct the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to approve and recognise the separate entity of Plot no. 6-A, Under Hill Lane, Delhi,as per site plan Annexure A-3 (PP 59), measuring 2500.06 sq. yds. as decreed by this Hon'ble Court in Suit No. 315 of 1970, dated 10.08.1972 and the consequent sale deed executed on 18.12.1974 filed as Annexure P2. (b) Direct Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Delhi Development Authority, Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Respondent No. 4, i.e. the Union of India through Ministry of works housing and urban development to withdraw all instructions/di...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Mathew Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ714
Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the following prayers:-'(a) Pass an order directing the respondents to re-imburse to the Petitioner, the balance amount of Rs. 113119/- towards medical expenses incurred by him at EHIRC.'2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner, who is a pensioner, put in 38 years in the Central Secretariat. The petitioner retired on the 1st February, 1980 while he was holding the post of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Civil Supplies. As a government servant, the petitioner was entitled to free medical aid under the Central Services Medical Attendance Rules through the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). It is pointed out that the petitioner holds CGHS identity card No. 44355 (Ec). Even after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of free medical aid under the afore-stated scheme.3. Unfortunately, on 10th October, 2001, the petitioner suffere...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR140(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT358; 2005(83)DRJ684
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Orissa Cement Limited, the Plaintiff filed this Suit for recovery of Rs. 30,64,312.51 in this Court in the year 1979. According to the Plaintiff, the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred on them under Section 18(g) and 25 of the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1959 issued Cement Control Order, 1961 which was deposed and re-deposed in the year 1967 which was subsisting till institution of the Suit. The Rate Contract was renewed by the by the Officers of Union of India from year to year. The Plaintiff has placed the lease of renewal on record till 31st March, 1980.2. In April 1973, the defendants issued a circular dated 21st April, 1973 amending the Rate Contract and added the clause in regard to payment of sales tax on freight. The amended clause reads as under:-'Clause 8(VI) Sales tax is not legally livable on the element of freight but in the event of the seller being assessed to the payment of sales tax on the element of freight in t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Bakshi Steel Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR74(Delhi); 2005(83)DRJ670
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Union of India invited the tenders for manufacturing and supply of Malleable Cast Iron Inserts to IRS Specification T-32-1984. The tenders received upon this offer, were opened on 5.2.1991 and the order was placed on M/s. Bakshi Steel Limited, respondent herein vide letter dated 9th August, 1991. The terms and conditions of the contract were governed by Indian Railway Standard Conditions of the Contract. The awarded contract was for the supply of 56 lacs numbers of MCI Inserts which quantity was subsequently reduced to 42 lacs in terms of clause 10 of the contract. According to Union of India, the payment was to be made at the rate that would be finalized against the ensuing tenders by the Board or existing rates, whichever is lower. The counter offer given was accepted and order for the supply was placed upon the respondent.2. According to the respondent as well, the terms and conditions were accepted vide letter dated 14th September, 1992 issued by the responden...
Tag this Judgment!international Tractors Ltd. Vs. Punjab Tractors Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(31)PTC183(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order, I would dispose of two applications is No. 3205/2005 in CS(OS) No. 301/2003 and is No. 1637/2005 in CS(OS) No. 470/2004 Both applications are under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC. is 3205/2005 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint in CS(OS) No. 301/2003 while is No. 1637/2005 was filed by the same applicant for amendment of the written statement in CS(OS) No. 470/2004 As common arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and both these suits are being heard and decided together, it will be appropriate to decide both these applications by a common order.2. International Tractors Limited filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Punjab Tractors Limited, their employees and agents etc. from dealing in the tractors, tractor housings or tractor components which are an identical or substantial reproduction of the drawings of CMERI made from time to time in respect of...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Chand Gupta Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT420
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.WP (Crl.) No. 984/2005:1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. is for quashing FIR No. 364/2004 registered at PS New Friends Colony under Sections 420/120B, IPC. This FIR had arisen on account of certain property disputes between the parties which have been amicably resolved. The petitioner has deposited in the Court a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 5,35,142/- with a prayer that the same be handed over to respondent No. 2 in terms of their settlement dated 22.3.2005, a copy of which has been placed on record. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as respondent No. 2 also pray that the FIR may be quashed as prayed.2. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties was almost civil in nature which has been amicably resolved by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case in which in exercise of its powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., this Court should quash the FIR. It is in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hotline Cpt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT173TriDel
1. The appellants entered into a technical collaboration agreement in May, 1995 with L.G. Electronics, a Korean company. The purpose of this agreement was to obtain assistance to produce 14", 20" & 21" colour picture tubes. Pursuant to this agreement, the appellants in 1996 obtained 11 volumes comprising of certain work standards and part drawings which were in the nature of operating manuals to obtain the right quality products. A bill of entry was filed declaring the value of the 11 volumes at U.S.$ 300 and the consignment was custom cleared.Subsequently, proceeding were initiated and the Commissioner passed an order holding that 11 volumes of technical information are liable to customs duty under Customs Tariff Heading 1491. A differential duty demand of over Rs. 1 crore was confirmed against the appellants. When matter came before this Tribunal in appeal, it took the view that the rate of duty applied was incorrect and that the value of the 11 volume was also required to be re...
Tag this Judgment!