Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Hotel Queen Road P. Ltd. Vs. Hill Crest Realty Sdn. Bhd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas59(Delhi); 123(2005)DLT454; 2005(84)DRJ288; [2006]68SCL197(Delhi)

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of is No. 5505/2005 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 &2 CPC for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from requisitioning/ holding any Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the share holders proposed to be held on 4.8.2005.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this application are that the plaintiff owned hotel known as Ashok Yatri Niwas at Ashok Road, New Delhi. In the process of dis-investment of certain Hotels by the Government of India, bids were invited for sale of the hotel and the bid offered by Moral Trading Investment Limited was accepted. An agreement was duly executed between the plaintiff, Moral Trading Investment Limited and Government of India for the purchase of shares of the plaintiff company by the Moral Trading Investment Limited from the Government of India. At that time hotel was in dilapidated condition. Defendant No. 2 who is the promoter of the Moral Trading Investment Lim...

Air Vice Marshal J.S. Kumar (Retd.) Vs. Governing Council of Air Force ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2003)DLT409

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Respondent's decision dated 10th October, 2003 to cancel the Membership of the Petitioner to the Air Force Sports Complex/Golf Club is in issue in this petition.2. Earlier, CW 7439/2002 had been filed which was disposed of by this Court on 8.9.2003 setting aside the impugned order dated 9.9.2001 while maintaining the suspension of the Membership of the Petitioner.3. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 18.9.2003 has been issued to the Petitioner who filed his response thereto dated 26.9.2003. After considering this response the Respondents have passed the impugned Order dated 10.10.2003 which has been assailed by Mr. H.L. Tiku, learned Senior counsel on various grounds.4. It has been contended on behalf of Respondents that it is always open to withdraw a privilege granted to any person. This contention cannot be accepted since a member of a Golf Club or Course does not avail of a privilege but exercises his right to use all facilities of the Club/Course for wh...

East Delhi Fruits and Vegetables Thok Vikreta Association and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ83; 123(2003)DLT401

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In CWP No. 7627/00 filed by the petitioners, on 22.1.2002 following order was passed:-'This matter has been pending since December, 2000. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.The short surviving controversy in this case is with regard to the payment of the outstanding market fee. Learned counsel Mr. Panwar does not dispute the figures of outstanding market fee as shown at page 103 of the paper book (internal pages 4 & 5 of the counter affidavit). It is stated that the parties at Seriall Nos. 10 & 11 are not the petitioners before the Court. After hearing the parties and considering that the matter involved is only clearing of the outstanding amounts, let the entire outstanding amount, as shown, be cleared by the petitioners in six monthly equal Installments commencing from 10.2.2002. In case the amounts are paid in six monthly Installments, as stated above and latest by 31.8.2002, the petitioners would be eligible for being considered for allotment of pr...

Pradeep Kumar Vs. Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2003)DLT398; 2005(84)DRJ233

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Tried on a charge for committing rape on a four-year old girl child, the appellant was, eventually, convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced to five years RI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default six months SI. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed instant appeal. 2. Material facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that on 26th of December, 2000 at about 1.00 p.m. a four-year old female child named Mona was playing in the street with other children. She was called by the appellant to his house and on her reaching there, he closed the door and allegedlycommitted rape on her. On reaching her house, Mona narrated the incident to her mother, Sulekha. The mother, in turn, informed her husband on phone in his office about the incident. Pawan Kumar Jha, father of the prosecutrix rushed back to his house. On an enquiry, Mona gave her account of the incident to him. The father, thereafter, went to the house o...

Smt. Krishna Kumari Uppal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)SLJ107(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. 1. Multiple rounds of litigation arising out of acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents have failed to give quietus to the controversy. The acquisition proceedings having been upheld by the Apex Court and possession of the land in consequence thereof taken, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking return of an area measuring no more than 20.50 Sq. Yd. on the ground that the said extent of land has not been legally acquired. In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that she had purchased a plot of land measuring 470.50 Sq. Yd. in what was known as Sunlight Estate, New Delhi in terms of a sale deed dated 1st September, 1986 executed in her favor. The respondents, according to the petitioner, notified only 450 Sq. Yd. of land leaving out the balance 20.50 Sq. Yd. from acquisition. The petitioner now seeks return of the said excess area in this petition for a declaration and a writ of Mandamus filed by her. The short question that, there...

Afroze Pasha Verus Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal has been preferred against the adjudication order No . AD(DSB)/BAN/33/99, dated 30-6-1999 whereby the adjudication authority imposed penalty of Rs. 700 on the appellant for contravention of section 6(1) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) far having unathorisedly purchased various amount of foreign exchange US$ 2438, Stg. Pound 10, UAE Dhms. 700, Aus. $ 1355 and Saudi Riyals 100 and Rs. 300 for having unauthorisedly sold foreign exchange. The above- mentioned foreign exchange as well as Indian currency of Rs. 60,000 being the amount involved in the unauthorised purchase and sale of foreign exchange was ordered to be confiscated to the Central Government under section 63 of the Act. 2. This appeal came up for hearing in Bangalore camp on 27-6-2005. The appellant was neither present nor represented. Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA represented the respondent. The appellant has already filed written submissions which are taken on record. This is an old appeal of 1999. Lon...

Pack Point Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Brief facts of the case are that the officers of the Central Excise Department visited the factory of the appellants and on stocking taking found that there was shortages of finished goods and inputs as compared to the statutory record. Based on these finding a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding the duty on the shortage of finished goods as well as on the inputs. The appellants replied to the show cause notice and explained their stand stating that the shortage of the finished goods was an outcome of presumption by the officers who visited their factory premises and the appellants also contended that the shortage of the inputs was due to inputs having been consumed in the manufacturing of the finished goods as well as in process goods lying in stock. The Adjudicating Authority on adjudication in its order-in-original dropped the demand of the duty on the shortages of the finished goods but confirmed the demand on the shortages of inputs.On an appeal the Commiss...

Punjab General Manufacturing Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Common issue involved in both the appeals, therefore, are being taken up together.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed declaration for availing the benefit of Notification No. 16/97-CE dated 1.4.1997 and during the same financial year another notification was issued by the Revenue i.e. 38/97-CE. Under this notification Modvat credit facility can be availed for finished products and finished products are to be cleared at concessional rate of duty, up to Rs. 50 lakhs. The appellant opted for availing the benefit of Notification No.38/97-CE during the same financial year. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of credit on the ground that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-CE, as no proper declaration was filed by them as they are working under the small scale exemption notification, the appellants are not entitled for the credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after denying the credit....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT365TriDel

1. The appellant Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) modifying the order-in-original by reducing the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- and setting aside the order imposing interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The respondent had filed cross-objections, but has only prayed for dismissal of the appeal. In the last para of the cross-objections, it has been stated that "...the appeal filed by the Revenue may be disposed off on merits because heavy expenditure will be involved in case some advocate or the representative of the unit attends the hearing at New Delhi...". The matter is, therefore, heard on merits with the assistance of the learned Authorised Representative of the department.3. The respondent was manufacturing sugar and molasses falling under Chapter Heading Nos. 17.01 and 17.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.A show cause notice cam...

Babbar S.J. Bahadur Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC39

1. Aggrieved by the order made by the Tribunal on 29.8.2001 in O.A.683/95 the present appeal has been filed. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are recorded hereunder: 2. The appellant claims to be the legal representative of the deceased 2nd defendant in the suit instituted in the year 1979 by the 1st respondent-Bank before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, seeking to recover a sum of more than Rs. 13 lakhs. This appellant claims that the 2nd defendant died when the suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, and that the fact of demise of the 2nd defendant was intimated to the respondent-Bank by presenting two letters dated 15.7.1991 and 22.2.1992 respectively. After constitution of the DRTs in the country pursuant to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit came to be transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the DRT, Delhi in the year 1995.Thereafter, the suit was taken up by the DRT for co...