Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Saurabh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC628

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application for bail has been made by the accused who is involved in an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34, IPC. Accused along with his brother and father is alleged to have cheated the complainant of Rs. 36,70,523/- between 9.2.2007 and 10.4.2007.2. The complainant has been doing business of selling and purchasing garments in the name of 'Shri Mahalaxmi Industry S Idquo' in Delhi. The accused's mother and complainant's mother are real sisters and, thereforee, the complainant and accused are closely related to each other. Complainant stated in the complaint that the accused persons came to him and told that they have been doing work of garments in the name of Sandeep Enterprises, Bhilwada and they wanted to include complainant in the business and they will sell the garments of the complainant in Bhilwada and he would earn profits. Complainant trusted the accused persons because of relationship. Complainant sent goods to the accused perso...

Karan Gandhi Vs. the State, Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ618

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. Preeti Goyal, a married woman with a 12 year old son, Gautam went to purchase a bicycle for her son from the shop of the petitioner, Karan Gandhi at Tilak Nagar. This casual meeting resulted in a friendship between the two and frequent meetings ensued, which abruptly came to an end on 10th June, 2006 at around 5 P.M., when Preeti and Karan were discovered together by Karan's father, mother and uncle. The outcome of the said chance encounter was that both were beaten up and abused in filthy language by Karan's relatives. Preeti Goyal was pressurized into writing a note in her hand, with her address and phone number, that she was a married woman and she would not meet Karan in future. After a subsequent discussion on the telephone on 11th June, 2006 both decided to meet at Rajouri Garden, from where they took an auto for a park in Dwarka. In the park, having come to the conclusion that they did not have a future together, they formed a part for dying together. Karan ...

Pankaj Steel Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC85

1. This is an appeal filed by Pankaj Steel Corpn. challenging the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai VII, dated 18.3.02.It is relevant here to note that this appellant was never a party in the proceedings before the authorities below. In the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (appeals), the appellant was Oil and Natural Gas Ltd., Mumbai Regional business center, Mumbai who is the assessee and not the present appellant before us. Similarly, the earlier adjudication order i.e. order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai VII, was also with reference to the dispute between ONGC and the Department. Nowhere in the said two orders the present appellant is in the picture.2. When the matter was agitated before this Tribunal earlier by the present appellant this Tribunal in its order reported in 2004 (169) ELT 228 (Tri-Delhi) had concluded that the present appellant had no locus standi to file the appeal under Sectio...

Shri Suresh Chand Sharma S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the time the Original Application was filed, the applicant had retired from service, seeking voluntary retirement. He submits that in respect of certain grievances, while in service and even after his retirement, he had been making routine representations annexed as Annexures A-6 to A-11. But it is submitted that the respondents had not bothered to examine the matter and not shown the courtesy of furnishing a reply, which ultimately had constrained him to file this Original Application.2. Taking into account the nature of the pleadings, and the relief prayed for, it could be gatherable that the applicant has sought for a relief for refixation of his pay appropriately in the grade of Rs.1600-2660 from a date suggested by him as 06.07.1996 and on the basis of such refixation, a further refixation also is to be carried out in his promoted cadre, namely, in the grade of Rs.6500-10500.Counsel submits that this necessarily would have resulted in a position whereby applicant would have...

M.S. Mandhaiya S/O Shri Harphul Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has filed the present O.A. after his superannuation.While working as Consul General of India, Medan, Indonesia, it is pointed out that in respect of certain grievances, he had, in fact, filed a Writ Petition No.16004/2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, he was permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition, as requested for by him, on 04.04.2007 and liberty had been rested with him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted that the present application is filed in the said circumstances.2. The averments in the application show that he had been recruited to the Indian Foreign Service, Branch `B' on the basis of a competitive examination, on 15.05.1976 against the reserved quota of SC/ST in the integrated Grades-II and III. He had been promoted as Section Officer on 08.06.1983. During the said period, certain proceedings were pending before the High Court as well as Supreme Court, and the applicant points out that finally a principle had ...

Darshan Kumar Maggon Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)243

1. The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 16th April, 2007.2. In ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal the assessee has disputed the validity of reassessment proceedings.3. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued on 27th March, 2006 i.e., after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under consideration. He submitted that the original return filed by the assessee was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative referred to p. 3 of the paper book which is a copy of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and submitted that the said notice has been issued by the ITO. The learned Authorised Representative referred to Section 151(2) of the IT Act and submitted that the notice was required to be issued by an AO not below the rank of Jt. CIT if the notice is to be issued after the expiry of f...

Old Navy (itm) Inc. and ors., Vs. Deepa Surekha and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ577; LC2007(3)528; 2008(37)PTC197(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs in the three suits have filed similar claims alleging infringement and passing off in respect of registered trademarks GAP, Old Navy and Banana Republic in respect of apparels. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have also adopted the trading style of GAPL, which incorporates in its entirety the registered trademark GAP.2. The plaintiffs claim their rights in these trademarks and vast sales running into billions of dollars all over the world. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are causing parallel importation of the goods under the said three trademarks, which were manufactured several seasons ago by or on behalf of the plaintiffs, but are no longer in use and were intended for sale in a specific country.3. The plaintiffs claim that they have an elaborate system in place which controls and regulates further dealings in their discontinued / discarded / out of fashion products by providing that these be t...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mr. T.P. Venugopal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT433; 2008(3)SLJ381(Delhi)

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Union of India assailing the order dated 10.4.2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) allowing OA No. 110/2005 filed by the respondent. Challenge in the OA was to order dated 22.1.2004, passed by the President whereby respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and grave negligence and was imposed penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension for five years and 20% cut in gratuity otherwise admissible to the respondent. CAT by the impugned order quashed the cut in monthly pension and gratuity holding the same to be illegal since it was imposed without returning a finding of there being grave misconduct or grave negligence.2. This case has a checkered history. Respondent was working as Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Controller of Accounts. While in service he was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and was put under suspension on 29.10.1997. The charge s...

Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Superintendent (Preventive), Cen ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(225)ELT32(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prays for quashing the complaint under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Sections 193, 192 and 120B of the IPC and the proceedings emanating out of the said complaint.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sh. P.K. Khera, Superintendent, Preventive, Central Excise had filed a complaint against the company, M/s Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd, its Managing Director and 8 directors. It was inter-alia alleged in the complaint that:i) M/s Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd is a company engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots.ii) On 24.07.87, the Officers of the Central Excise Collectorate visited the factory of the company M/s Metal Forgings (Pvt.) Ltd situated at B-1, Maya Puri Industrial Area, New Delhi. At the time of the visit, Sh. R.K. Shrivastav, a director of the company was present in the said premises.iii) Upon search of the said premises, incrementing documents were found which showed ...

Smt. Manju Parthi, Vs. Sh. Rohit Parthi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ257

J.M. Malik, J.1. The controversy in the instant case pivots around the question, whether the legal representative of a deceased defendant, who is already proceeded against ex parte and has not filed the written statement, is entitled to file written statement. The trial court vide its order dated 17.08.2007 answered this question in negative. Aggrieved by that order the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.2. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the respondent made two submissions. Firstly, he drew my attention towards Rule 4 appended to Order XXII of CPC. Sub clauses (1) & (2) run as follows:(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be ma...