Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Sh. Gautam JaIn and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT477

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These 8 revision petitions raise common issues, although there are separate orders which are impugned in these petitions. Some of the accused are also common in these petitions. The broad facts are that by different RCs which were all registered on 01.02.1996, the petitioners were accused of having committed offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The essential features of the allegations against the petitioners are that they entered into a criminal conspiracy during the period 1992-95 with the object of cheating the Government of India by obtaining Entitlement Certificates on the basis of the false and forged documents with dishonest and fraudulent intentions of importing newsprint which was an essential commodity and thereafter to dispose of the same in the open market at a higher premium and that they actually made such imports of newsprint under the duty free scheme with an act...

A. Tosh and Sons India Ltd. Vs. N.N. Khanna

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi251; IV(2006)BC349; 131(2006)DLT599; 2006(89)DRJ248; 2006(2)KLT716

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner filed an execution petition in respect of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kochi in O.S. No. 90/93. The decree was for the principal amount of Rs. 22,89,900/- along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of institution of suit till date of realisation. The Judgment debtor filed an appeal against the decree before the High Court of Kerala and interim orders were granted in favor of the judgment debtor subject to deposit of the amount of Rs. 5 lakh before this court. It may be noticed at this stage that the judgment debtor had obtained transfer of the decree for enforcement to this court. This amount of Rs 5 lakh was released in favor of the decree holder on 15.04.1996.2. The appeal of the judgment debtor was partly allowed in terms of the judgment in appeal dated 01.11.2000 and the decree was modified. The decree holder was held entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,24,666/- instead of Rs. 22,89,900/-. The decree holder was...

Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd. Vs. N.C.T., Thr. Secy. Labour and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT648; [2006(111)FLR661]; (2007)ILLJ50Del; 2007(2)SLJ258(Delhi)

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has impugned an order dated 4th September, 2001 passed by the Controller under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the order dated 30th June, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the same.2. Shri Vijay Kumar Churiwala (Respondent No. 2 herein) filed a claim against Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd., petitioner before this Court under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 alleging that he was employed with the petitioner since December, 1963 and he worked continuously till 30th October, 2000. He claimed that on this date, the petitioner refused duty to him and thereby his services were terminated after a continuous employment of nearly 37 years. As the petitioner refused to pay gratuity amount payable to the respondent no. 2 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, he served a notice dated 25th January, 2001 by registered post as well as under postal certificate. The petitioner did not deny the assertions made in the notice by an...

Mr. Sumukh Sharma Vs. D.D.A. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT377

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that he was an applicant in a Scheme floated by Delhi Development Authority as 'Festival Housing Scheme, 2004'. The petitioner applied in the said Scheme on 23.12.2004 vide application form stated to be bearing No. 155002 and further deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Registration money. It is further contended by the petitioner that a letter dated 25.1.2005 was received by the petitioner from respondent No. 1 informing him that since the application number on the form submitted by the petitioner was not fully visible and computer was not accepting the said number, in order to avoid any complications the petitioner was being given a new computerized application number, being application No. 755002.2. The petitioner further contends that a draw of lots with respect to allotment of flats in the said Scheme was held on 28.1.2005, the results of which were published in the newspaper 'Navbharat Times' on 29.1.2...

Shri K.R. Anand Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR230(Delhi); 131(2006)DLT538; 2006(89)DRJ361

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.02.2004 dismissing his petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1996).2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a contractor and the respondents had awarded a contract to him on 07.07.1989 for development of Land and Peripheral Sewage Drain No. 3, at Rohini, Phase-II, Delhi. This contract was awarded vide agreement No. 4/EE/FPD-4/DDA/89-90 dated 07.07.1989. This agreement contained an arbitration clause being Clause No. 25, in terms of which the disputes that arose between the parties are required to be adjudicated upon and decided through the process of arbitration. The disputes, in fact, arose between the parties in respect of aforesaid contract. Since disputes had arisen, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondents on 05.07.1996 and preferred his claim for payment of balance amount under the ...

Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs Vs. Shri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ380

Acting C.J.CM No. 5837/2006Allowed subject to all just exceptions.FAO (OS) No. 295-300/2006 295-300/2006 1. The appellants are the legal heirs of plaintiff Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania. They have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 07.02.2006 dismissing their application for restoration of the suit and also for their substitution as legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.2. The appellants' predecessor Late Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania had filed a suit for declaration [CS (OS) No. 354/1997] and the said suit was dismissed for non prosecution vide order of learned Single Judge passed on 22.07.2002. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as the plaintiff gave no instructions to his counsel and the counsel was constrained to move an application for his discharge from the matter after duly serving a registered AD notice on the plaintiff. The plaintiff Late Shri Bhagwati Prasad Singhania expired in November, 2005 and after his death his legal heirs filed applica...

ircon International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT309; (2007)ILLJ96Del

Gita Mittal, J.CM No. 11937/2004 (filed by respondent Nos. 2-21, 24, 26-32, 34, 35, 37-38) and CM No. 14302/2004 (filed by respondent No. 23 Shri Triloki Nath Sharma) 1. The writ petition was filed in July, 2004 and by an order passed on 14th July, 2004, this Court had stayed the operation of the award dated 27th April, 2004 subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court. The respondents/applicants in this application are claiming to be unemployed workmen in whose favor the award dated 27th April, 2004 has been passed and are praying for grant of interim wages during the pendency of the writ petition with effect from the date of the award. 2. The petitioner has filed a reply challenging the claim of the workmen and urging that they are disentitled to the grant of the interim relief on various technical reasons including a challenge to the correctness of the affidavit filed by the workman and also on the merits of the controvers...

Smt. Anju and ors. Vs. National thermal Power Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ361

Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioners in this case claim to be ex-agriculturists and residents of Village Jajru in the Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad in the State of Haryana. They claim that they were agriculturists by profession and that different pieces of their agricultural land has been acquired by the state of Haryana under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. According to the petitioners, this land was acquired in the year 1996 for construction of a thermal power station by the respondent herein. It is submitted that as a result of this acquisition of land, the petitioners lost their employment. In recognition of their plight, officers of the respondent assured the petitioners that at least one member of the family whose land has been acquired, shall be adjusted in service with the respondent on permanent basis. Such an appointment was given to land owners at Village Neemka of Tehsil Ballabgarh in District Faridabad. The land was earlier acquired by the respondent...

Gagan Thaper Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, the learned Counsel places reliance on the earlier Interim Stay Orders No. S/87-90/06-Cus. dated 29-3-2006 and S/83-84/06-Cus. dated 31-3-2006 whereunder it was observed that, no duty was demanded from those applicants and that the provisions of confiscation or penalty in respect of violation relating to antidumping duty were introduced w.e.f. 2004 and since the import was prior to that date, there was a case for waiver of penalty.2. In the present case, admittedly, the import was made prior to the year 2004 when by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004), Sub-section (8) of Section 9A was substituted and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 relating to offences and penalties were also incorporated by reference for applying to antidumping duties, as they applied in relation to duties leviable under the Customs Act. The provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 9A, prior to that substitution, incorporated the provisions of the Customs Act by reference which related ...

Master Niku Chaubey Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT577; 2006(88)DRJ830

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohini, Delhi. By virtue of the said order, bail had been refused to the juvenile, Master Niku Chaubey on the ground that the release of the juvenile on bail is likely to bring him into association of bad company and expose him to moral and psychological danger.2. It is well-settled that in the case of a juvenile, in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), it is mandatory for the court to grant bail to such juvenile notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force. However, he shall not be so released if there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him in the association of any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or p...