Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Karan Mendiratta Vs. Dean, Faculty of Technology (Delhi University) an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT389; 2005(83)DRJ710

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. These writ petitions came to be filed in this Court on noticing a sinister coincidence in the results of some candidates in respect of the Common Entrance Examination, 2005 (CEE 2005) to the B.E. Course (Bachelor of Engineering) conducted under the aegis of the Delhi University. Some of the candidates who featured high-up in the Merit List have obtained identical marks in the same subjects. At the first blush this may be considered to be a mere coincidence, but not so when it is noticed that the identical marks covered three subjects.2. On receiving information about the possibility of an irregularity having been committed in these Examinations, and the subsequent preparation of the Merit List, the Delhi University had acted with a promptitude which is expected of premier University such as it is. The Central Bureau of Investigation has been called in. The Report of the Joint Director CBI/ACB/New Delhi dated 22/07/2005 was received by the Registrar, University of ...

Smt. Bhawani Devi and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT396; II(2005)DMC330; 2005(83)DRJ688

R.S. Sodhi, J. Crl.M.A.4190/2005:1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.Crl.Rev.P.305-306/2005 305-306/2005 and Crl. M.A. 4191/2005:2. Crl. Rev. P. 305-306/2005 305-306/2005 are directed against the order dated 04.3.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge has framed charge under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 304-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners on the basis of the statement of Tara Dutt and Bhagirathi Devi.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is nothing on record to show that the mother-in-law or the sister-in-law have committed any acts of cruelty and/or are responsible for the death of the deceased Radha @ Rukma.4. Counsel has taken me through the statements of Sh. Tara Dutt s/o Sh. Keshav Dutt, Smt. Nandi Devi, Smt. Bhagirathi Devi as also the statement of Bansidhar.5. From a reading of the aforesaid statements there is no iota of evidence to show that either the mother-i...

Surender Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT185; 2005(83)DRJ703

Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the Order of the learned Tribunal dated 19.9.2002 dismissing the Original Application No. 2387/2004 filed by the petitioner herein. By the impugned Order dated 19.9.2002, the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the Order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority converting the punishment of dismissal to removal from service. The petitioner before the learned Tribunal had also challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Order dated 10th May, 2001 passed by the disciplinary authority and had prayed for a direction that he may be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.2. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence submitted a report dated 6th November, 2002 holding that the petitioner had unauthorisedly and willfully absented himself from duty on five occasions from June, 1997 to June, 1999 for a period of 57, 11, 6, 59 and 14 days (137 days in total). The Enquiry Officer in his re...

Gangadhar Vs. Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2003)DLT396; 2005(83)DRJ607; 2005(190)ELT159(Del)

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 6th May, 2003, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in CA No. 1/2002, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner herein arising out of the order dated 24th December, 2001, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has held the Petitioner guilty under Section 132/135(i)(a) of the Customs Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for total one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-.2. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the judgment of conviction on merits but confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the offence is dated 12th March, 1989, and that the Petitioner has already suffered incarceration for over seven and a half months out of the total sentence of imprisonment of one year awarded to him. The fine has also been depos...

Sunil Kohli and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT594; 2005(83)DRJ637; 2006(195)ELT15(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. For deciding these Writ Petitions the Custom House Agents license Regulations, 1984 is to be considered and interpreted against the Customs House Agents license Regulations, 2004.2. The case of the Petitioners is that they have been working with Customs House Agents from 1985 onwards. They are holders of 'G' Cards issued by the Customs Department under the 1984 Regulations. This Card was issued to them because they had held an 'H' Card because they had been working with a permanent licensee. After holding a 'G' Card for a period of three years the Petitioners would become eligible for being considered for the issuance of a temporary license under Regulation 8 of the 1984 Regulation. A prerequisite for the grant of a temporary license under Regulation 8 was that as per Regulation 9(5) the holder of a regular license had to authorise such persons to appear in the Examination. Persons who have been successful in the Examinations must further fulfill all the conditions...

Ms. Sumitra Chauhan Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT125; II(2005)DMC437; 2005(83)DRJ21

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Petitioner, Sumitra Chauhan, was married to Amarnath Chauhan on 11.12.1993. In March, 1995 the couple were blessed with a female child named Ramita. Master Rishab was born to them in February, 2001. As per the petitioner, she suffered dowry harassment. She bore the trauma as she wanted the family not to break. She alleges that on 7.5.2002 an attempt was made to set her on fire when kerosene oil was poured on her by her husband and her mother-in-law. In spite thereof friends and relatives intervened. They attempted a patch up. For the sake of her children she continued to live with her husband in the matrimonial house but ultimately was forced to leave the house Along with her children when things became unbearable.2. She lodged a complaint pursuant whereto FIR No. 289/2005 PS M.S. Garden was registered for offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC.3. Amarnath Chauhan was arrested and was produced before the Duty Magistrate on 13.9.2003. On said date, as recorded by ...

Stericat Gutstrings (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT187TriDel

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by M/s.Stericat Gutstrings P. Ltd. In the application, it is mentioned that after hearing the arguments, the order was dictated in the open Court and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1 lac. The learned Counsel for the appellants on 27-12-2004, i.e. the date of the decision, informed the appellants that the redemption fine has been reduced to Rs. 1 lac. However, when the applicant received the certified copy of the Final Order No. 15/05-NB(SM), dated 27-12-2004, it was found that in Para 3, the amount of redemption fine was written as Rs. 2 lacs instead of Rs. 1 lac. It was requested that it appears to be a typographical error, which may be rectified. The appellants have also filed an affidavit, in this regard.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that typographical mistake is apparent on the face of the record and this can be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.He relied...

Sanket Food Product Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication under passed byy the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala. On 8.03.2002, the factory premises of appellants were searched and premises of M/s. S.R. Marketing and M/s.Rathi Enterprises were also searched. From the premises of M/s. S.R.Marketing, 700 packets of Pan Masala valued at Rs. 44, 100.00 were seized on the ground that the Pan masala was cleared by the appellants without payment of duty. During verification, it was also found that printed laminated rolls weighing 7459.592 Kgs were found in excess than the quantity shown in RG-23A Part I. The excess printed laminated rolls were also seized.3. Show cause notice was issued for demanding duty in respect of the Pan Masala seized from M/s S.R. Marketing and for confiscation of Printed laminated rolls. The Adjudicating authority dropped the demand in respect of the Pan Masala seized from ...

Laxmi Color (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR12

1. None for the appellant. Accordingly, the stay application is being ordered after hearing the learned JDR.2. The appellant is engaged in providing photography services. It is liable to Service Tax. The appellant's claim is that, for the purpose of valuation of service, the cost of photographic film is not to be included. The appellant had taken this contention before the lower authorities without success.3. Revenue's finding is that in rendering photography services, there is no sale of material and therefore, no reduction is permissible in terms of exemption Notification No. 12/2003. Perusal of the records makes it clear that no evidence has been produced to show that the appellant was selling material separately. The Revenue's contention that there is no sale in rendering photography services is prima facie sound. In these circumstances, the stay application is rejected.Appellant is directed to deposit the service tax demanded within a period of six week's from today and report co...

Linear Technologies India Pvt. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT307TriDel

1. On the petition filed by the Domestic Industry the Anti-dumping proceedings were initiated by the Designated Authority vide Notification No. 34/1/2001 dated 16th August, 2001. On the basis of preliminary findings dated 2-11-2001 by Notification No.128/2001-Customs dated 21-12-2001, anti-dumping duty in respect of the export of Compact Fluorescent Lamps imported into India from China PR and Hong Kong was imposed on provisional basis. Thereafter, taking into consideration the various submissions made by the interested parties, the designated authority issued a disclosure statement dated 28-10-2002 and, thereafter, notified the final findings on dated 14th November, 2002. On the basis of final findings, Government of India issued a Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002 imposing antidumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps into India from China PR and Hong Kong.2. The present appellant challenged the notification imposing antidumping duty in respect of Compact Fluorescent L...