Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Neeraj Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT137; 2006(90)DRJ725
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order on charge dated 14.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the petitioner is that on 22.7.2004 at 1.30 p.m. at the house of Satpal, Harijan Basti, Rangpuri, the petitioner had abetted in the suicide committed by Vivekananda Pandey and thereby committed an offense under Section 306 IPC.2. The brief facts as indicated in the charge sheet are that on 22.7.2004 on receiving DD No. 48A, S.I. Ziley Singh along with constable Dhan Singh went to the spot at the house of Satpal at Ranagpuri, where one man had committed suicide whose name was found to be Vivekanand Pandey. It is indicated in the charge sheet that on searching the body of the dead man one suicide note was found in which the present petitioner (Neeraj Gupta) was mentioned as being responsible for the suicide. On...
Sharafat HussaIn (Deceased Through Lrs) Vs. Gurpal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ453
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent filed an eviction petition against late Sh. Sharafat Hussain under Section 14(1)(a) & (b) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of suit premises No. 2027, Gali No. 156, Main Raod, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. The premises was stated to be let out in September-October, 1984. Initially one shed in corner of the property is stated to have been leased out but the petitioner late Sh. Sharafat Hussain was alleged to have kept the adjacent shed and was subsequently accepted as a tenant in respect of two sheds kept by him. The tenancy was oral and thereafter a written settlement dated 26.07.1985 came into existence. The respondent however backed out from the same and sublet/assigned or parted with possession of the suit premises to several persons who are alleged to be running their business illegally. The arrears of rent were stated not have been paid despite demand and unauthorised damage to the property was alleged. The Additional Re...
Kishan Chand Vs. Sri Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ445
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Late Sh. Srichand was the owner/landlord of shop bearing No. 1372 Vaidwara, Delhi which was given on tenancy to late Sh. Kishan Chand on 27.06.1959 vide rent note of the same date on a monthly rent of Rs. 45.25 inclusive of house tax but exclusive of other charges. In the year 1975, an eviction petition was filed by the landlord against the tenant under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereafter referred to as the 'said Act') alleging that the arrears of rent had not been paid. The eviction petition also set out that the landlord was compelled to file a suit No. 260/70 for arrears of recovery of rent for a period of three years prior to the filing of the suit which was decreed. It was alleged that even after the decree, the rent had not been paid. Permission had to be sought from the competent authority under Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act. A further allegation made in the eviction petition was that the ...
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)7STT63
1. Appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. The said manufacturing is undertaken using the know how and technical information supplied by M/s. Honda Motor Company. The transfer of know-how and technical information is under agreement. The agreement provides for payment of fees and royalty.2. Under the impugned orders, service tax demands have been made in regard to the above payments, in particular, with regard to the models developed for India. The said demand is upon a finding that it is a case of Honda rendering "Consulting Engineer Services".4. It is seen that know how and technical information in regard to all models, including the ones developed for Indian conditions, is owned by Honda. Production in India of those models is in accordance with the licence granted. Thus, it is not a case where an Indian company has developed any model in (engineering) consultation with a foreign company.5. Revenue also points out that there is an element of consultation even in the transfer...
Saini Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)10STT366
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. v.CCE, Patna, by the applicants are more appropriately covered under the category of services provided by C and F agent.3. The contention of the applicants is that they are working as Commission Agent and relied upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai, reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.- LB), to submit that larger bench of the Tribunal over-ruled the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna (supra). The larger bench of the Tribunal in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) held that mere booking of orders for the principal by an agent on commission basis would not amount to provide services as Clearing and Forwarding Agent.Revenue also submitted that ...
Sanjeev Vats Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)724
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dt. 9th Dec, 2003 of CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 31st Dec, 1998. The appeal has as many as eleven grounds.Ground Nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal relate to non-service of notice of hearing and denial of reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. Rest of the grounds in the appeal relate to the merits on the additions made by the AO and upheld by learned CIT(A).2. It was argued before us that learned CIT(A) has proceeded ex parte as notice of hearing was not received by the assessee. In the order passed by learned CIT(A) it is stated that for the purpose of hearing, notices under Section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 were issued. on 15th Sept., 2003, 13th Oct., 2003, 29th Oct., 2003 and 17th Nov., 2003 fixing the date of hearing on 26th Sept., 2003, 29th Oct., 2003, 12th Nov., 2003 and 24th Nov., 2003. On these dates neither anyone attended nor any reply was filed. The learned CIT(A), theref...
Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Morepen Laboratories Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR159(Delhi); 132(2006)DLT588; 2006(91)DRJ618
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These applications have been filed under Order 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by way of objections to the Execution Petition. The Execution Petition has been filed by the Decree Holder for execution of the consent award made and published by the Sole Arbitrator Justice A.P. Chowdhri (Retired) on 28.6.2003.BACKGROUND:2. As noted in the Award the Decree Holder had advanced a loan of Rs. 5 crores to Morepen Laboratories Limited (JD No. 1). The terms and conditions of the loan were incorporated in the Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) Agreement dated 19.9.2002. Clause 5 of the said ICD Agreement provided for the rate of interest and was as under:5. The normal agreed rate of interest for placement of the ICD is 36% p.a., however as a special case the lender is placing the ICD at concessional rate of 21% front ended payable at quarterly rests. In case of delay or default in making payment of principal amount or any part thereof on its due d...
Ashok Bhattacharya Vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ214; 131(2006)DLT581; 2006(90)DRJ299; 2007(3)SLJ475(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The only point raised in the present petition is that the petitioner does not fall within the expression 'public servant' as defined under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case pertains to the company known as Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), the entire holdings of the company known as Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd. was not taken over but only those units which are specifically mentioned in Section 2(e) of the said Act were taken over. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the CBI that by virtue of the said Act, the entire company, i.e., Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd., including all its assets and liabilities and holdings were taken over. It is an admitted position that the present petitioner was employed at t...
Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Shri Prabhakar Kis ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR353(Delhi)
Gita Mittal, J.1. This petition was filed under the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. In the petition, in para 7 of the petition, the petitioner has stated thus:(X) That as per Item No. (18) of the Schedule to the loan agreement (Annexure 'A-2') the place of arbitration is New Delhi. The notice of demand as well as the notice nominating the Sole Arbitrator were issued from Delhi. thereforee, this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this application.Along with the petition, a photocopy of the agreement has been filed by the plaintiff which is supported by a schedule purportedly signed by both parties to the present petition.2. It is to be noted that this petition was originally filed before the Additional District Judge, Delhi where it remained pending from 23rd September, 2005 till 7th December, 2005. By an order made by the learned Additional District Judge on 7th December, 2005, having regard ...
O.S. Pasricha and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ861
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No. 2, namely M/s. Bhargava & Associates Pvt. Ltd., has filed criminal complaint against the petitioners herein under Section 420 IPC in which order dated 29.3.1996 was passed by the learned MM summoning the petitioners. The petitioners filed application for recalling of the summoning orders, which has been dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 3.4.2003.2. The main contention of the petitioners, on the basis of which they seek dismissal of the complaint, is that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and criminal complaint has been filed giving it a colour of offence of cheating which is to harass and pressurize the petitioners. It is this question which needs determination by this Court. In order to appreciate the controversy, let me scan through the undisputed facts which emerge from the complaint.3. In the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, it is alleged that the petitioners had engaged the services ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »