Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Shehzad Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ239

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby his contention that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence has been rejected.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, as per the school certificates, his date of birth is 15.05.1989. The date of incident is 26.04.2005 which would clearly make him a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) inasmuch as the word 'juvenile' has been defined in Section 2(k) as a person who has not completed the 18th year of age,3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State. The impugned order reveals that the Principal of Phool Public Junior High School at Muzaffarnagar, U.P. whereby the petitioner was studying appeared in the witness box and testified that the petitioner (Shehzad) was admitted in the said school on 01...

North India Light Weight Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Insecticides L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ548

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The sole question which arises for consideration in this case is whether there is any period of limitation for an arbitrator to file the award in court.2. The factual matrix is undisputed. On 26th July 1990, a direction was issued to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) by the learned arbitrators to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards cost and expenses of the arbitration proceedings within a period of one week to enable them to make and publish the award. The proceedings of 26th July, 1990 were sent to the parties on 30th July, 1999 for necessary compliance. Thereafter, on 30th August, 1990, the learned arbitrators made the award. By letter dated 24th September, 1990, an intimation was sent to the parties that the arbitrators had made and signed the award in the matters referred to them on 30th August, 1990 and that certified copies of the award would be sent to the parties after receipt of the sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards costs, and expenses of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Malbro Appliances P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(208)ELT503(Del); 2007[5]STR256

ORDERCM No. 3871/2005 (delay)1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CEAC No. 20/20052. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31st October, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. E/2156/03-B/03.3. The allegation against the Respondent was that it was engaged in the manufacture of LPG gas stoves under the brand name 'Surya Flame' and was not entitled to the benefit of the notification granting exemption to small scale units on the ground that the said brand name belonged to one M/s Shivam Industries.4. It appears that even before the show cause notice was issued to the Respondent seeking to levy duty on the clearances effected, the duty amount was paid by the Respondent.5. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent and duty and penalty of an equal amount was imposed upon the Respondent. In an appeal filed by the respondent the Tribunal took the view that instead of levy of 100% penalty on the d...

Smt. Bimla Gupta and Sh. Rakesh Chandra Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT521

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These two cases are raising identical question of law and were, thereforee, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, facts of Crl.M. No. 1760/2006 are noted.2. Respondent No. 2, North Delhi Power Limited (in short the 'NDPL') has lodged FIR No. 52/2006 against the petitioner herein under Section 135/138 of the Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged therein that a technical inspection was conducted at premises No. A-11, Keshav Puram Industrial Area, Delhi, by an authorised inspection team of the complainant when it was found that Sh. Dinesh Gupta (husband of the petitioner) had indulged in theft of electricity. The connected load at the time of inspection was found to be 70.560 KW and Sh. Dinesh Gupta was found to be utilising stolen electricity for industrial purpose. As per the FIR, the inspection team found the following discrepancies:(a) meter found installed in old separate type CT a...

Radhey Sham Garg Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ365

J.M. Malik, J.1. Two important points arise for the consideration of this Court, firstly, whether the relief should be granted to the petitioner after the lapse of 15-16 years and secondly, whether the petitioner has any legal right to be enforced. The facts germane to petitioners case are these. The petitioner completed diploma in engineering and was appointed as Work Assistant or Junior Engineer from on 15.12.1983 onwards in the MCD. The next higher post in the cadre is the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), which can be filled up 50 per cent each through promotion and by direct recruitment. Two following qualifications are required for eligibility for the post of Assistant Engineer:(a) the candidate should be holder of degree in engineering(b) the candidate should have two years work experienceIn the year 1989, the respondents invited applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer against the direct recruitment quota. Although, the petitioner had compl...

Dr. (Miss) Taramotihar Vs. Smt. Satyawati Sharma (Since Deceased) Thro ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ255

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein-after referred to as the said Act) in respect of the tenanted premises located at Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. Both these petitions raised a common question since the landlord is common and the allegation is that the premises are being put to commercial use contrary to the terms of the perpetual lease.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to re-produce the relevant provisions which are as under:14. Protection of tenant against eviction. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the ...

Dooars Roadways Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated 30-12-2005, which confiscated the seized goods.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a truck carrying CTC tea and on searching the said truck the officers found 13 bags of small cardamom, concealed under the tea bags. The truck, tea bags and cardamom were seized. The driver of the truck admitted in his statement that he loaded the contraband on the way and the transport company and the owner of the goods are not aware of the same. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to confiscate the small cardamom, tea bags and the truck. Adjudicating authority on adjudication, ordered for absolute confiscation of foreign origin small cardamom, confiscated the truck and tea bags with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalties on the driver and cleaner. This appeal is directed against the con...

C.C. Vs. A.T.M. International Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC216

1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original dated 31.1.2006 which set aside the penalties imposed by the order-in-original.2. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent company and the partner thereof obtained DEPB license from DGFT, Ludhiana. They exported the goods under the license against shipping bills during the period 1999-2000. It was alleged that the respondent had forged the bank realization certificate for getting DEPE license from DGFT and based on this allegation and on investigation these licenses were cancelled by the DGFT subsequently. Before cancellation, licenses were sold to the purchaser who had imported the goods under these licenses. Show cause notice was issued to the current respondent proposing imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties on current respondents. On appeal filed by the respondents the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents on two grounds, ...

Shri Kuldeep Singh Rana S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chi ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. As these OAs are founded on same set of facts involving common questions of law, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. Applicants, who have been working as Coaches, seek regularization and drawl of salary for the period they had worked with the respondents.4. On litigation, an order passed in Anand Prakash v. Govt. of Delhi and Ors. OA-2010/2000 decided on 18.4.2001 wherein the scheme framed in pursuance of erstwhile directions of the Tribunal was found to be justifiable and in accordance with law. Accordingly, directions were issued to the respondents to review the claim and consider the applicants therein and Ors. as well for regularization. The aforesaid OA was challenged before the High Court in WP-12549-51/2005 where for want of any stay, the matter is fixed for hearing on 16.1.2007.5. Learned Counsel for applicants seeks extension of benefit of the aforesaid OA on the ground that the applicants herein are similarly circumstanced to that of the applicant in the a...

Dev Jhari W/O Late Sh. Harender Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicants have sought a direction to the respondents to regularize the Qtr. No. 176/A-3, Basant Lane, Railway Colony, New Delhi in the name of applicant No. 1 from 1.11.2000.2. It is submitted by applicant No. 1 that her husband was appointed in Railways but unfortunately he died at young age. Accordingly, she was given compassionate appointment in place of her husband in the year 1995. She assumed duty as Khalasi on 7.12.1995, which is evident from pages 18 and 19. Since her father-in-law was also a Railway employee and was allotted Government accommodation bearing Qtr. No. 176/A-3, Basant Lane, Railway Colony, New Delhi, she gave a representation seeking permission to share the quarter with her father-in-law.Ultimately, vide letter dated 21.4.1998, Shri Sudarshan Ram, father-in-law of applicant, was permitted to share the Railway quarter with his daughter-in-law Smt. Dev Jhari. It was also stated that daughter-in-law will not be eligible to draw HRA w.e.f. 07.12.19...