Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

State Vs. Atbir and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1802; 127(2006)DLT100; 2006(86)DRJ796

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Lust for two 'Z's i.e. Zar (wealth) and Zameen (Land) by the appellants led to the commission of this ghastly crime. The genesis lay in the second marriage of one of the appellant's father. Thus the third proverbial 'Z' i.e. Zun (Woman) too played its own part.2. This judgment would decide Crl.A.805/2004 preferred by Appellant-Atbir as also Murder Reference No. 3/2004 moved by the State. Atbir challenges his conviction under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 10th September, 2004 and order of sentence of death dated 27th September, 2004. Appellant-Ashok has preferred Crl.A.876/2004, against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him. 3. Appellant-Atbir son of Jaswant Singh, Ashok Kumar @ Ashok son of Nanhu Singh, Arvind son of Rajbir and Chandra, first wife of Jaswant Singh, all were charged for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Smt.Sheela Devi current wife of Jaswant Singh, Sonu @ Sa...

Box and Carton India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty or Rs. 49,39,323/- and penalty of the equal amount and also waiver of pre-deposit of penalties.2. The contention of the applicant is that there are two units manufacturing the same goods. One unit is Super Fine Packaging and the same is working since 1985 and were availing the benefit of SSI exemption. The other unit is Box & Carton (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the same is manufacturing the goods since 1996 and clearing the goods at appropriate rate of excise duty. The contention is that in the impugned order, the demand confirmed on M/s. Box & Carton (India) Pvt. Ltd. by denying the benefit of SSI exemption to M/s. Super Fine Packaging though in the impugned order, there is finding that Super Fine Packaging is also not a dummy unit of Box & Carton (India) Pvt. Ltd. The contention is that as the SSI exemption is being claimed by Super Fine Packaging and the benefit has been denied to the Super Fine Packag...

A.R. Alloys Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC42

The appellant filed this application for restoration of the appeal. The contention of the applicant is that the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dt. 19.12.05 for non-compliance to the condition of the stay order. The contention is that before this date, the applicant made an application for withdrawal of the appeal. That application was not put before the Bench on the date when the final order was passed. The prayer of the applicant is that the appeal be revived and the same will be dismissed as withdrawn. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as the applicant filed a Misc.application dt. 24.9.05 which was received by the registry on 26.9.05 with the prayer that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, the final order of the Tribunal for noncompliance to the condition of stay is withdrawn and the appeal is to be treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The application is allowed as indicated above....

Hotel Association of India and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ668

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 which is the Hotel Association of India and four other petitioners, two of whom are women employees in the hospitality industry have preferred this writ petition which challenges the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which reads as under:-30. Prohibition of employment of men under the age of twenty-five years and of women - No person who is licensed to sell any liquor or intoxicating drug for consumption on his premises shall during the hours in which such premises are kept open for business, employ or permit to be employed either with our without remuneration, any man under the age of 25 years or any women in any part of such premises in which such liquor or intoxicating drug is consumed by the public.2. The petitioners No. 2 to 4 are Graduates of Hotel Management and those who were completing the course of Hotel Management and looking for a career in the hospitality indus...

Dr. Kapil Sethi Vs. Dr. Ajay Gambhir and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT381

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2005.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. This case is a typical instance of a wide spread malady which has infected the urban areas of this country, and Delhi in particular, namely, the belief in a large number of people that they can violate the building rules and Bye-Laws with impunity by using power or pelf and get away with it. 4. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 in this appeal) had purchased the flat bearing No. A-779, Sector 2, Avantika Market, Delhi and is in possession of the same. It is alleged that after purchase and possession of the flat the petitioner has been facing a lot of inconvenience in enjoying the civic amenities and had to compromise with the unhygienic and unhealthy conditions. There is a sewerage blockage next to the premises of the petitioner which...

Shri S.C. Rastogi Vs. Smt. Renu Kalra and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC323; 127(2006)DLT793; 2006(88)DRJ101; (2006)143PLR33

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.82,37,500/- under the provisions of Order 37 CPC.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is `karta' of S.C. Rastogi & Co., a Hindu Undivided Family. Defendant No.1 is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of `Papad' under the name and style of M/s Ridhi Enterprises under the brand name `Laziz Papad'. Defendant No. 2 is husband of defendant No.1 and has family relations with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been the tax consultant of the defendant No.1. In various taxation proceedings, the plaintiff had represented the defendant No.1. Somewhere in the year 1992, defendant No.1 represented to the plaintiff that she had got bulk supply order from Kendriya Bandhar, Nafed and Super Bazar and was not having sufficient money to make payments for these supplies on cash terms. She requested the plaintiff for financial assistance. The plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs.74.50 lakhs. Despite friendly r...

interior's India Vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi16; 2006(1)ARBLR482(Delhi); IV(2006)BC62; 129(2006)DLT547; 2006(87)DRJ712

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is running its business of interior decoration with its office at 3244, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi. On 22nd July, 2003, the petitioner was awarded a work for interior and partition as stipulated in the order No. CPP/161/T/060. This work was awarded by respondent No. 1 on back to back contract awarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 under tender No. DLH/CIVIL/SCOPE/INTERIOR/02 for civil interior/partitioning, electrical, air conditioning, fire fighting system/EPABX network and structured cabling/Access control and other misc work for its office premises stipulated at Scope Minor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The total work awarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 was for a total contract value of Rs. 1,86,50,000/-. The parties entered into an agreement. Clause 42 of the tender document/agreement executed between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 provides that in the event of any conflict between the provisions o...

Dda Vs. Manohar Lal and Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR132(Delhi); 127(2006)DLT495; 2006(86)DRJ751

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The DDA awarded the work for development of land for industrial area in Mongolpuri Industrial Area to Manohar Lal & Company in pursuance to agreement dated 28/EE/ND-25/DDA/85-86. Dispute arose between the parties which resulted in the rescission of the contract on 23.01.1990. In view of Clause 25 of the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties, same being the arbitration clause, the engineer-member DDA referred the matter to a sole arbitrator. There were series of arbitrators appointed and finally Sh. Som Dutt was appointed as the sole arbitrator, who made and published his award dated 08.01.2002. 2. Both the parties have filed objections Under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as said Act).3. Learned counsel for the parties state that they are conscious of the fact that scrutiny of this court in such objections has to be within the parameters of Section 34(2) of the said Act as elucidated by the apex co...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]296ITR72(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This income-tax appeal is filed by the CIT, Delhi, under Section 260A of the IT Act related to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. The question formulated by the Court reads as under:Whether Tribunal was correct in giving a finding that the container/tanker mounted on a vehicle was nothing but a big cylinder because it had all attributes of a cylinder ?2. The facts of the case are that the assessed claimed depreciation @ 100 per cent on containers/cylinders mounted on trucks. The AO was, however, of the view that since the so-called cylinders were merely containers and were mounted on trucks, the assessed was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 25 per cent as eligible to 'plants and machineries'.3. In his appeal before the CIT(A), the assessed submitted that the tanks were nothing but cylinders mounted on vehicles. It was also explained that the truck chassis on which the cylinders were mounted were not owned by the assessed but were taken on ...

ishwar Industries Ltd. Vs. the Crocus Chattels Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT10; 2006(87)DRJ430

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants in the original suit No. 80/2003) and respondent Nos. 4 to 11 (not defendants in the original suit) praying that the contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents and they be punished in accordance with law.2. The petitioner filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi being Suit No. 2041/97 for declaration and injunction against the defendants in that suit. The relief prayed was that the defendants be directed to carry out and complete construction in block No. 5 of Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed by the plaintiff. On 25.9.1997, the court passed the following order on that injunction application & suit:-Present: Mr. B. Mohan with Mr. N.K. Kant...