Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 12 of about 150 results (0.054 seconds)The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT601; 2005(83)DRJ241; 2005(31)PTC190(Del)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents namely Union of India (Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & the Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting), the DCP, Press Section-Licensing, the Registrar of Newspapers of India, M/s Living Media India Limited, Shri Anil Mehra and M/s Thompson Press India Limited to comply with the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is not in dispute that from 1997 to June, 2005, Mr. Anil Mehra on behalf of M/s Living Media India Limited was printing and publishing the journal namely 'The Chartered Accountant' at the Thompson Press India Limited. It appears that disputes arose between the petitioner and M/s Living Media and the petitioner switched to another printer at Bombay namely Spenta Multimedia, leading to the filing of Civil Suit No. 950/2005 in this Court by respondent No. 5 -M/s Living Media India Limited, seeking an injunction agains...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Prakash Singal and 3 ors. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT715; 2005(83)DRJ723
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioners allege that they own lands which fall within Khasra Nos. 71/1 (4-04), 71/2(4-04), 71/3(4-04),71/4/1 (1-17), 71/7/2 (2-02), 71/8(4-16), 71/9 (4-16), 71/10 (4-10), 71/11 (4-16), 72/5 (4-08)m 72/6 (4-10) situated in Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the quashing of the Notification dated 17.12.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, bearing . F.27(35)/98/LandB/LA/15548 and the declaration dated 11.12.2003 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction calling for the records leading to the issuance of the said notification and declaration and for calling for the reasons and nothings leading to five shifting of the proposed site for acquisition which was initially located at Village Mundka and ultimately shifted to the one indicated in the said Notification and declaration in Village Tikri Kalan. The petitioners have also prayed for orders re...
Tag this Judgment!Lodhi Hotel Employees Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT538; 2005(84)DRJ40
Vikramajit Sen, J.C.M. 8883/20051. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.RP 191/2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1561-64 of 2005.2. By means of this application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC a Review of the Order dated 31.1.2005 has been prayed for. An Appeal was filed assailing this Order which was disposed of by the Division Bench in the following terms:'Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw these appeal and the application for condensation of delay with a view to pursue appropriate remedy. Permission granted.Dismissed as withdrawn.'3. The question of maintainability of an application for Review filed in a situation where an Appeal had also been preferred came up for consideration in Ashok Kumar Monga v. UCO Bank reported as : 108(2003)DLT169 . In that case it was held as under:'3.The observations in (Raja) Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Sahi v. Amar Singh and Ors AIR 1923 PC 128, which have stood the test of eighty long years, apply in full force. It was observe...
Tag this Judgment!All India Pnb Retired Officers Association (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Punjab ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ200; (2006)ILLJ1039Del
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution seek directions to set aside certain provisions contained in the Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. These provisions relate to payment of simple interest at 6% per annum upon refund of bank's contribution; commutation formula and restoration commuted portion with effect from the date of date of commutation, instead of actual date of retirement, in so far as pertains to employees who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.10.1993.2. All the petitioners were officer-employees of the Punjab National Bank, a Banking Company under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereafter 'the Act'). They retired between the period 1986 and 1993. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'PNB') framed called Regulations formulated in terms of Section 2(19) of the Act. The Regulations entitled certain classes of employees and retired employees to p...
Tag this Judgment!Vardhman Spinning and General Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT38TriDel
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the rebate claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the goods were exported out of India after the time period allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Notification No. 40/2001-C.E.(N.T.), dated 26-6-2001.3. The contention of the appellant is that the goods were cleared from the factory for export and appellant could not export the goods within six months. Therefore, they asked for extension and the Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the extension for the period of six months. The appellants thereafter filed shipping Bills within the period of extension granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The contention is that the rebate claim decided on the ground that goods were actually exported out of India after extended period. The contention is that there is delay of almost ten days in actual export and the time extended by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention is that as appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby benefit of MODVAT credit as capital goods was disallowed in respect of the CI sluice Gate, Loudspeaker with Amplifier, Fire Extinguisher, Sequence Card/Flasher Card, Weather Proof Cell Point and Bushing. The contention of the appellants is that during the relevant period the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules covers plants and machinery used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and parts thereof. The contention is that CI Sluice Gate is part of the Effluent Treatment Plant. The appellants manufactured the Sluice Gate and the effluent treatment plant is necessary for manufacturing the final product and it is a part of the plant. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Farmers Fertiliser Coop.Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the benefit of MODVAT credit in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT185TriDel
1.This appeal of M/s. Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., is directed against Final Finding notified on 5th September, 2002 of the Designated Authority (DA), Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Customs Notification No. 123/2002-Customs, dated 31st December, 2002 issued by the Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, Department of Revenue. The Findings and the notification were the culmination of dumping investigations initiated upon a petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of Poly Iso Butylene in India with its manufacturing facility at Chennai. It filed a petition before the aforesaid DA alleging that poly Iso Butylene was being dumped into India from European Union, Brazil, Japan, Korea R.P., Singapore and Thailand and that those dumped imports were causing injury to the domestic manufacturers (domestic industry) of Poly Iso Butylene. The appellant sought relief from the adverse effect of dumped imports by way of imposition of Anti-dumping duty on such d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Industries and ors. Vs. the Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT699; 2005(83)DRJ617
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioners are holders of Category `A' [Traders/Wholesalers] licenses issued by the Narela Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, having been carrying out their trade from the Narela Mandi for several decades. A decision was taken by Board for the shifting of the Narela Anaj Mandi to New Narela Anaj Mandi and Anaj Mandi at Najafgarh to the New Grain Market at Haibatpur. It is not in dispute that so far as the Najafgarh Market is concerned Category `A' as well as Category `B' (Commission Agent) licenses have been allotted plots in that market. 33 acres of land was acquired in respect of the Narela New Anaj Mandi and 174 plots were carved out for allotment to licensees in both categories. On 24.5.2000 the Board allegedly took a decision that allotment in Narela would be made only to Category `B' licenses. It is this decision which has been assailed in these writ petitions.2. The Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 was enacted by Parlia...
Tag this Judgment!Kulbhushan Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT609; 2005(83)DRJ609
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 16th November, 1999, whereby the learned Judge has reversed the order dated 25th February, 1995, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused.2. The case of the prosecution, as is evident from the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., is that the Petitioner was the owner of the plot in question over which the construction was entrusted to Buta Ram, who in turn engaged a sub-contractor Raj Kumar. It was Raj Kumar who engaged labourers while Buta Ram arranged for the building material as also the electric connection, etc. It was during the course of construction that one labourer accidentally got electrocuted and died. On the basis of this incident, an FIR was registered being FIR No. 43/1992 dated 3rd February, 1992 under Section 304A IPC. The learned Magistrate before whom the case appeared for framing of charge came to the conclusion tha...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Mehta and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT188
Manju Goel, J.1. Petitioners were summoned vide order dated 27.1.97 for offence Under Section 342/354/323/328/506/147/149 IPC. The complaint on the basis of which the order on summoning was passed was as under:The complainant/respondent No. 2 is the wife of the petitioner No. 1. She had certain litigations against the petitioner No. 1 as also members of his family. On 16.4.91, the respondent No. 2 was sitting in the chamber of her counsel. The accused 1 to 10 namely the present petitioners and one Sanjeev Mehta came to the chamber and bolted the door of the chamber. They used foul language against the complainant. Petitioner Jatinder pulled her saree while the petitioner No. 1 handed over a capsule to petitioner Santosh Mehta asking her to put the capsule in her mouth in order to make her unconscious. The complainant fell down from the chair while resisting the effort to put the capsule in her mouth. The accused/petitioner Rajeev Mehta tried to overpower the complainant and brought out...
Tag this Judgment!