Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Arooshi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rahul Butalia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ466

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present order disposes of plaintiffs application IA No. 3025/2005. The application has been filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying that till disposal of the suit, the defendants should be restrained from transferring, selling, creating a charge or parting with possession of land and building bearing No. 37, Sector-18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaort ; 70, Sector-18, Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon and B-26, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi.2. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 20th April, 2005.3. Vide order dated 18.4.2006, disposing of IA No. 6971/2005, the ex-parte order dated 20th April, 2005 was modified, in that, property bearing No. B-26, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi was excluded from the purview of the injunction granted.4. Thus, in respect of the 2 properties at the Industrial Estate in Gurgaon, injunction operates.5. Case of the plaintiff in support of the injunction is that with effect from 28.9.1996, defendant No...

Gayatri Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ236

P.K. Bhasin, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner for the release of her husband Shri Sita Ram Aggarwal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the detenu') who had been detained on 21/09/05 pursuant to a detention order No. 673/01/2005-Cus VIII dated 05.08.2005 passed by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short).2. The facts leading to the passing of the detention order in respect of the petitioner's husband as culled out from the pleadings of the parties and other material placed on record are like this:The detenu is an exporter of shawls and readymade garments. He has been carrying on the export business as a sole proprietor of M/s. G&S; International, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The detenu is alleged to have acquired during ...

Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT135

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition has been filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('RP Act' for brevity) assailing the election to the Legislative Assembly of Delhi of Respondent No. 4, namely Shri Haroon Yusuf. It is not in dispute that Shri Yusuf was, at the material time and continues to be the Chairman of the Delhi Wakf Board (DWB). This Objection had been raised at the time when the Nomination Papers had been filed by Mr. Yusuf on the grounds that in his capacity as Chairman of the DWB he was holding an Office of Profit. 2. Article 191 of the Constitution of India proclaims that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he holds any Office of Profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an Office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder. Section 15 of ...

Ranu Bhandari Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ768

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Sanjay Bhandari, presently detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi pursuant to an order of detention order F. No. 673/22/2005-Cus. VIII dated 15.12.2005 issued against him by Sh. R.K. Gupta, Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The aforesaid order is issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods in future. 2. The petitioner justifies her locus standi as she is the wife of the detenu, rightly interested in the detenu's welfare and aggrieved of the order of detention dated 10.12.2005 under the provisions of COFEPOSA. She has, thus, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing this petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus and the immediate release o...

Express Towers Vs. Mohan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT260

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose off plaintiffs' application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for passing a decree of declaration and a decree of specific performance on the basis of admissions made by the defendants.2. The plaintiffs contended that an agreement to sell dated 21.5.1987 was entered into between the plaintiffs and Sh.Mohan Singh and Smt.Jeet Kaur, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the purchase of property No. B-7/118, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi for a sale consideration of Rs. 23,50,000/- out of which Rs. 1 lakh was paid to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of entering into agreement to sell. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the provision of Chapter XXC of Income Tax Act, 1961 was applicable in respect of the purchase of the property. thereforee, the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed necessary application on 27th May, 1987 in form No. 37(I) with the appropriate Income Tax authorities for `No object...

Ec Pocket Maya Enclave Residents Welfare Associaiton and ors. Vs. Delh ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ562

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The city of Delhi prides itself in a large green cover; the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Urban Development (2004-05) of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, states that 19% of the city is 'green area', more than the garden city of Bangalore (at 13.57%). The report also states that 5050 hectares of the total green area is under the jurisdiction and control of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which has developed 1600 acres of such spaces into parks of different kinds and sizes, woodlands, greenbelts, etc. In this case the petitioner, an association of residents of three blocks of the DDA Maya Enclave, seek a writ or direction enjoining the respondents, including DDA from changing the use and character of a green area, admeasuring 3000 square meters.2. The EA, EB and EC Blocks of Maya Enclave (hereafter collectively referred to as 'the colony') comprises of several flats constructed, and transferred to its allottees, by the DDA. In keeping with its policies, th...

Madan Mohan Goel and Others Vs. Rajindra “jaina” Group of Co ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President 1. This complaint has been filed by the four complainants who are members of a group housing society, claiming compensation of Rs. 9 lacs with 18% interest from the O.P. who has failed to deliver possession of the booked five commercial spaces inspite of regular payments. 2. Allegations, in brief, are that on 9.5.1986 the O.P. company had placed an advertisement in the Indian Express wherein space for shops/offies at Mahavir Tower/MMTC/STC Commercial Complex near Aurobindo College, Hauz Khas, New Delhi was offered to the general public. The complainants booked commercial space in the building proposed to be constructed, i.e., Mahavir Tower at Plot No. B-2, MMTC/STC Shopping Centre, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. A licence deed dated 25.6.1986 was entered between the complainants and the O.P. company. A periodical security deposit at th rate of Rs. 1,550 per sq. ft. of the super area was to be paid by the complainants. The complainant deposited the required instalments...

Automotive India (Raipur) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 20.07.2004 upholding the order in original dated 18.03.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing the facility to pay central excise duty in instalments under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for a period of two months and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Rule 27 of the rules as well as confirming the interest demand of Rs. 3,04,930/- (Rupees three lacs four thousand nine hundred and thirty only) while appropriating Rs. 29,014/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand and fourteen only) paid on 8.11.2003 by the party.2. The appellant was availing the facility of payment of central excise duty on monthly basis as per Rule 8(1) of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 (now Central Excise Rules, 2002). The assessee was claiming SSI exemption under the Notification No. 9/2002-CE (NT) dated 1.03.2002 passed on the value of such clearances in a financial year of the goods manufac...

Nehru Steel Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC365

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 23.4.2004 which allowed the appeal of the appellant partly and reduced the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturer of inserts and steel castings and were supplying the same to their customers based on contracts. In the purchase contract there was a clause for escalation of price of goods.Hence, the appellant raised supplementary invoices during the period 2000-01 for the escalation of prices. The appellant raise supplementary invoices for the clearances made during the period 1997-98 to 1999-2000. During the period May, 2000 to September, 2001 the appellant deposited the amount partly from PLA and partly from RG-23A, Part-II.Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that they have not indicated the issuance of supplementary invoices for the earlier period, and hence have suppressed the information from the departme...

Jitender @ Jeetu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ714

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2004 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.2.2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, passed in Sessions Case No. 22/2000, arising out of FIR No. 142/2000, Police Station Khajoori Khas, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC while has acquitted Mukesh/accused No. 2 who along with convicted accused was charged under Section 302/34 IPC. Further, by order of sentence dated 6.3.2003 the trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default whereof further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, are:The facts of the case as alleged in chargesheet are that on 20.05.00 Ct. Om Prakash presented DD No. 14 A before SI R.K. Meena at Road Khajuri ...