Delhi Court August 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.
V.K. Saxena Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC388
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent No. 2 has filed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s. Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Other persons are arraigned as the co-accused on the ground that they are the Directors of the accused company and in charge of the said company. Summons have been issued to all the accused persons. Petitioner is accused No. 9 in the said complaint. He has filed this petition seeking quashing of summoning orders against him. Plea raised is that he is the General Manager of IDBI and since IDBI had extended financial assistance to the accused company, the petitioner was nominated as Director of the accused company. It is further submitted that in that capacity he remained Director till 31.5.2002 whereas the cheque in question which was bounced and on the basis of which present complaint is filed is dated 20.10.2003.2. Second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 141 clearly stipulates that 'where a person is nominated as a Director of a c...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Commr. of Service Tax
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)11STT26
1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenges the order of Commissioner confirming the demand and recovery of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 45,73,771/- and imposing penalty of like amount under Section 75 of the Act as well as other penalties under Sections 76 and 2. It appears that the proceedings were commenced by invoking the extended period of five years. The finding that there was suppression of facts willfully does not appear to be based on any material evidence and seems to be purely inferential. It appears that the Commissioner has decided the question of invoking the extended period with reference to the amended provision of Section 73 and not to the earlier provision, which was applicable in view of the show cause notice having been issued on 6-9-2004, that is, prior to such amendment which was made with effect from 10-9-2004 by substituting the same proviso.3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that there will be interim stay of the impu...
C.C.E. Vs. K.P. Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC519
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the refund claim of the respondents was allowed.3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala containing Tobacco i.e. Gutkha and during the period December 2000 to February 2001 the respondents cleared goods on payment of basic excise duty and additional duty of excise. Thereafter, on 12.8.2002 the appellant filed a refund claim in respect of additional duty of excise on the ground that goods manufactured by them are not liable to pay additional duty of excise. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim. On appeal filed by the present respondent Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable in respect of all refund claims. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. C...
interocean Shipping (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ashish Dhull
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR390(Delhi); 133(2006)DLT77; 2006(91)DRJ115
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Applicant, Inter Ocean Shipping(I) Pvt. Ltd., has filed this action under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. The Applicants' claims are predicated on an Agreement of Service, the salient clauses of which are that the Respondent/Employee could not take-up employment with any other organisation during the three year tenure of the Agreement. The Applicant/Employer was contractually bound not to terminate the services of the employee during this tenure. Correspondingly, the employee was bound not to leave the service of the employer until the completion of the agreed three years tenure. The consequences of the employees' breach have been spelt out. The power to extend the tenure is conspicuous by its absence. The said Agreement contains the following Arbitration Clause:14. That in event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto during the subsist...
Anney Kamran Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 131(2006)DLT663; 2006(91)DRJ719
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Revision petition has been filed inasmuch as the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2005 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dismissing the petitioner's application of 12.5.2005 requesting for holding a full fledged inquiry with regard to the age of the accused Hasan Ali in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.)2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are that prior to the committal of the case by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the Sessions Court, on 13.2.2004 the Metropolitan Magistrate recorded the age of accused Hasan Ali as given by him to be 17 years. However, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that from his appearance he did not appear less than 18 years of age. It was noted in the said order that the accused had stated that he did not go to schoo...
Shri Maru Singh and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT493
Vipin Sanghi, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which has come up for final hearing after issuance of 'Rule' has been filed by two individuals. The Petitioners joined the Respondent Delhi Transport Corporation as conductors in the year 1962. Respondents No. 3 to 9 who are private respondents also joined the Respondent Corporation in the same post in the year 1967 and thereafter. The Petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in December, 1979 whereas Respondents No. 3 to 9 were promoted to the said post in the year 1982. Next promotion post was that of Traffic Inspector. Respondents No. 3 to 9 came to be promoted as Traffic Inspector on 18.2.1987 whereas the Petitioners were promoted as Traffic Inspectors on 5.2.1992. 2. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India issued an office Memorandum bearing No. 20011/1/96-Estt. (D) dated 30.1.1997 which was circul...
M.L. Jindal Vs. D.V.B. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ727
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition WP(C) No 1159/2002 whereby the appellant had challenged the order dated 10.3.2000 passed by the Respondent No. 1 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The appellant also challenged the order dated 9.11.2001 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority.2. The appellant was in service with the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) [earlier known as Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking] for over 32 years. On 22.6.1995, a Memorandum was issued to the appellant stating that while working as a Senior Cash Clerk at the Rani Bagh Cash Collection Counter No. 504 on 26.12.1990 he embezzled/ misappropriated government money in the sum of Rs. 7695 collected by him against the electricity connection of one Mr. Arun Kapoor at B-320, Lok Vihar, Pritam Pura, Delhi. The memo was accompanied by a statement of settlement of al...
Shri Sanjeev Bansal Vs. Oman International Bank Saog and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC299; 131(2006)DLT729
Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 25th July, 2006 passed by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169/2005. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that he being a tenant and in physical possession of the entire first floor of the property bearing No. H-36, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi-110049 by virtue of lease deed dated 15th May, 2001, duly executed by the principal borrower and mortgagor of the property M/s. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., is fully protected under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and cannot be dispossessed without taking recourse to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. We need not narrate the detailed facts. But it is suffice to state that M/s. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. who is a principal borrower had availed some loans from Oman International Bank after mortgaging the said flat in question in favor of the bank by executing a memorandum of ...
Late Bawa Harbans Singh Through His L.Rs. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT535; 2007(94)DRJ258
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The prayer in this application by the writ petitioner (through LRs) reads as under:It is thereforee most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:(a) Recall the Order dated 31.03.1989, in as much as the Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and allow the Writ Petition in terms of the Specific prayers made therein.(b) Pending decision of the present application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to revive the interim Order dated 20.04.1987 passed by this Hon'ble Court.2. This application was filed on 25.11.2005 seeking recall of an order dated 31.3.1989 whereby the petitioner's aforementioned writ petition was dismissed. The prayer in the writ petition was for a direction to quash the notification dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') and a declaration dated 27.5.1985 under Section 6 of that Act in respect of the petitioner's land in Village Satbari, Mehrauli. One of the grounds on which th...
Ramey Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2006
Reported in: 134(2006)DLT106
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11th April, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No. 2752/1993, rejecting the objections filed by the appellant/respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in the suit, and making the award dated 5th October, 1993 published by the learned Arbitrator, rule of the court.2. Along with the present appeal, the appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short `the Limitation Act') for condoning a delay of 1203 days in preferring the present appeal. It is submitted by the appellant that he was not made aware of the impugned judgment by his counsel and that the said judgment came to his knowledge only around 15th July, 2005 when he received a copy of the execution application calling upon him to appear in court on 5th August, 2005. The appellant states that he was under the impression that his objections were still...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »