Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.K. Delicacies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC561; 2005(2)CTLJ134(Del); 122(2005)DLT685; 2005(83)DRJ691
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. In the present matter arguments were heard on 14.7.2005 and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter the counsel for the respondents mentioned the matter and sought liberty to file an additional affidavit. With the consent of the parties and for the reasons recorded in the order-dated 19.7.2005, further arguments were heard on 22.7.2005.2. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, the respondent No.2, by way of publications made in the months of March and April 2005, invited tenders from caterers in respect of some trains mentioned therein.3. M/s. P.K. Delicacies Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner No.1, submitted tenders for 15 trains as per the details given below:Sl.No. Train No. Name of the train1 2707/08 Andhra Pradesh Sampark Kranti2 2029/30 2031/32 Swaran Shatabadi Express3 2017/18 New Delhi Dehradun Shatabdi4 2007/08 Chennai Mysore Shatabdi5 2015/16 New Delhi Ajmer Shatabdi6 2005/06 New Delhi Kalka Shatabdi7 2011/12 New Delhi Kalka8 2433/34 Nizamuddin Chen...
Kurup Engineering Company Pvt. Limited Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR44(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT349; 2005(83)DRJ493; (2006)142PLR48
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for settlement of the claims/disputes raised by the petitioner. 2. The petition has been made with the averments that the petitioner-company was awarded the work for erection, testing, commissioning and trial operation of 1x100 TPH HRSG set at IOCI Mathura Refinery Co. Gen. Plant Phase III, Mathura (UP) by the respondents by means of letter of intent dated 23.10.2003. The contract contains an Arbitration Agreement which provides that all disputes between the parties arising out of or in relation to the contract, other than those for which the decision of the Engineer or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and conclusive, shall after written notice by either party to the other party, be referred to sole arbitration of the General Manager or his nominee. The arbitration was to be continued i...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT607; 2005(83)DRJ621
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7-1-1997 on the writ petition filed by the respondent. This is unfortunately a dispute between two authorities where the appellant is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the respondent is a public corporation. The dispute relates only to the assessment of the rateable value in respect of the vacant land purchased by the respondent from the DDA.2. In determination of the rateable value, the provisions of Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) would be relevant. The said provision as it stood at the relevant stage of time is as under:-'Section 116. 'Determination of Rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes -(1) The rateable value of any lands or building assessable to property taxes be the annual rent at which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year less -(a) a sum equ...
Trina Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Vs. the Secretary (Labour) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1082]; (2006)IILLJ307Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent No. 3/Mr.Ramaji (hereinafter referred to as `the workman') was working with the petitioner (hereinafter called as `the management') as Turner. According to him, he was employed on 2nd November, 1978. He approached the Conciliation Officer alleging that he was refused duty by the management which tantamounted to termination of his services. As the conciliation proceedings ended in failure, following reference was made by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration to the Labour Court No. VII for adjudication:'Whether the management refused duty to the workman and whether this tantamounts to termination of service. If so whether the termination is illegal and unjustified what directions are necessary in this respect?'2. After adjudicating the dispute, the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 17th February, 1990 held that termination of the workman's services was bad in law. However, for reasons stated in the award, the Labour Court declined to grant ...
Rakhi Vs. Pankaj Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT268; II(2005)DMC501; 2005(83)DRJ509
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 166/2005 is directed against the order dated 04.02.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision 55/2004, whereby the learned Judge has while interfering in an interim order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. reduced the interim maintenance directed to be paid to the wife holding that she was not entitled to any maintenance since she was an income tax payee.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that only an interim amount was fixed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order was not a final one. He further submits that the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge are wrong inasmuch as the petitioner being an income tax assessed is capable to maintaining herself. He submits that at the time of marriage in 2001, since there was a demand of car from the in-laws a sum of Rs.3,50,592/-(rupees three lakh fifty thousand five hundred and ninety two) was credited to the account of the pe...
Anil Kumar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT418; II(2005)DMC377
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M.A. 9778/2004:1. Delay condoned. Application disposed of.Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 & Crl. M.A. 9776/2004.Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 4.6.2004 whereby the learned Judge has framed a charge under Section 498A/306/302/34, IPC.2. Counsel submits that such charge cannot be framed since they are diametrically opposite.3. I have gone through the records and perused the order dated 4.7.2004 as also studied Sections 306/302/34. Obviously, Counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that charge of 306 and 302/34 cannot be framed. Particulars of charge are essential to be supplied while framing of charge in which case if Kanta Devi has committed suicide she cannot be murdered.4. In his view of the matter, the order dated 4.6.2004 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-frame charges, if so made out, on the material available before it.5. With this Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 is disposed of Crl.M.A...
Sant Valves Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT377TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants have disputed the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal regarding confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act.3. The facts are much in dispute. The appellants imported the goods namely, cast iron water meters and brass forged ball valves, from China. They filed the bill of entry dated 21-8-2003 wherein they also declared the country of origin as China. However, on examination of the goods, while in docks, it revealed that the name of the country of origin was not indicated and the goods for that reason had been ordered to be confiscated for non-compliance with the provisions of Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-64.4. The origin of the goods was to be indicated by the supplier of the goods. The appellants were only required to declare the origin of the goods in the bill of entry which the did. They also came to know about the non-indication of the country of origin o...
Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 123(2005)DLT236; 2005(83)DRJ508
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10th December, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.56/03, 63/03, 64/03, 65/03, whereby the learned Judge while upholding the order on conviction dated 4.10.1999 passed by the trial Court, has reduced the sentence to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 448 IPC, though maintaining the sentence of RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 427 IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 506/34 IPC in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months in each section as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 6.10.1999. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. As per the letter No. F.2/SCJ-2/CJ-2/AS(CT)/2005/3759 dated 30th May, 2005 of the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi, the Petitioner No.1 has already completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon h...
Constable Ashok Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ679
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the Order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.5.2003 in Original Application No. 455/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Application filed by the petitioner herein asking for declaration that the show cause notice and the orders passed holding that the petitioner's name be deleted from the promotion list `B'(Technical).2. On 6.9.1995, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner on the ground that he had willfully and unauthorisedly absented himself from duty on several occasions. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 11.6.1997 was issued to the petitioner stating that he had failed to satisfactorily conduct and do his work and thereforee why his name should not be removed from the promotion list `B' (Technical Grade II Driver). The petitioner...
R.K. Tripathi Vs. Madan Mohan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT176; 2005(83)DRJ125
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 28th September, 2004, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in C.A.No. 10/2004, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by giving observation that there is no infirmity in the Judgment and Order dated 9th March, 2004, of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in proceedings arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not challenging the order on conviction, but confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He submits that the Petitioner has already undergone seven months out of the one year RI imposed upon him for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submits that the fine of Rs.5000/- has also been paid to the complainant. He also submits that the Petitioner was admitted to bail vide Order dated 3rd May, 2005 and there has been no complaint about him having belied the trust bestowed upon h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »