Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Lalit Goel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT575; 2008(224)ELT216(Del)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This second application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the offence committed by the applicant is a bailable offence in view of the latest order of Supreme Court in Avinash Bhosale v. Union of India and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1138/07 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4421/07 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail on the ground that the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) was bailable. The order of the Supreme Court reads as under:On the material placed on record, and the amended Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 it appears to us that apparently the offence which is alleged to have been committed is a bailable offence and thus the Magistrate has rightly granted bail to the Appellant. In view of this, the order of the High Court is set aside.2. It is also stated that Punjab and Haryana High Court in its order dated 6th March, 2006 in case of Kulbhushan Goyal v. Joint Commissioner of Cust...

Shri Gautam Adani Vs. Container Corp. of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT281; 2008(103)DRJ389

T.S. Thakur, J 1. This appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1981 is directed against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No. 1087/2005 whereby defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit have been directed to remain present for recording their statements under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff respondent in this appeal claims a copyright in a project called the 'Cold Chain Project' and the entire technology and know-how relating to the same. Alleging that defendant No. 1 in the suit who was earlier working with the plaintiff as its Managing Director had manipulated his position with a view to having the said project shelved, the plaintiff respondent sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants including defendant No.3 appellant herein restraining them from implementing the project or any variation thereof or divulging the details relating to the said project to Defendant No.2 or to an...

Tapan Bose Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. They are multi-nationals and therefore have background of having competent professionals and personnel. They have business in highly civilized and developed countries. They are engaged in the business of finance and lending. Their wealth is immense and they have lost track of their wealth. It is because of this that they dont pay any heed to the orders passed by the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities of this country dealing with the consumer disputes arising from their deficiency in service. They do not listen to the Apex Court of this country namely the Supreme Court of India. They do not believe in rule of law. They consider themselves above law. They dont believe in legal method of recovery of dues. For recovering few thousands of rupees towards loan amount by way of instalments from the borrower they engage musclemen and goondas as recovery agents who waylay people while they are driving the financed vehicle on the road along with their famili...

Shri Manish Taneja S/O Shri B.K. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant was a Postal Assistant at Krishna Nagar and at present, he is working as Postal Assistant in Jhilmil Post Office, Delhi under Delhi East Postal Division. He has challenged in these proceedings the penalty advise issued to him by the Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, dated 29.07.2005 (Annexue A-1). It is stated that an appeal filed by him had been rejected by the Director of Postal Services (P), on 20.12.2006 (Annexure A-2). Two articles of charges had been framed as against him. The inquiring authority by Annexure A-3 report had held that Article-I of the charge was not proved but Article-II stood proved. The penalty order dated 29.07.2005 reads as following: In the light of the above it is ordered that the pay of Shri Manish Taneja SPM, Sonia Vihar Post Office Delhi-94 be reduced by four stages from Rs.4900/- to Rs.4500/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.4000 to 6000/- for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.2005. It is further directed that Shri Manish Taneja ...

Narender Kumar and anr. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DLT337; 2007(99)DRJ347

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10th September, 2004 whereby he convicted the appellants under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and against the order of sentence dated 14th September, 2004 whereby he sentenced each of the appellants to undergo RI for 02 years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 498A and RI for 07 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307/34 IPC.2. The brief facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that complainant Veena Rani was married to accused Gyan Prakash on 24th November, 1997. She was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital on 9th May, 2002 by her husband at about 10.00 p.m. with 25 % burns. She told the doctor that she received burn injuries accidentally while she was cooking food on LPG stove and her dupatta caught fire accidentally resulting into burn injuries. Her MLC Ex. PW 3/1 shows that her pulse rate, Blood ...

Smt. Vidya Wati Thukral and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT514; 2007(99)DRJ393

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India two letters of the Respondent (hereafter referred to as 'L&DO;') dated 16.3.1992 and 9.3.1994 have been challenged. A quashing order has been claimed.2. The facts briefly are that one Shri K.N. Ahuja was the original allottee of property being I-G/26, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter called 'Suit property'). He transferred/sold his rights to one Smt. Sita Devi by a deed dated 13.9.1972. The original term of allotment contained a stipulation that permission had to be sought for transfers, Smt. Sita Devi applied for permission, through her Attorney Ms. Ranu Thukral by letter dated 22.6.1990 for transfer to the Petitioners. The L&DO; by its letter dated 6.8.1991 granted permission on condition that unearned increase of Rs.42,669/- was to be paid. Para 6 of the letter also required the intending purchaser (i.e the Petitioner) to furnish an undertaking that the difference of 50% unearned increase on rev...

Ms. Disha Sethi and Master Sanskar Sethi Vs. Sh. Chander Mohan Sethi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi81

J.M. Malik, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. The learned trial court vide its order dated 15th February, 2006, directed the minors/plaintiffs to deposit the court fee. Aggrieved by this order, the minors have approached this Court.2. The relations between the husband and wife were strained and thereafter, the minors, Disha Sethi and Sanskar Sethi, filed a suit for maintenance against their father through their next friend, Smt.Rashmi Sethi, their mother. Vide the impugned order Smt. Rashmi Sethi was appointed ad litem guardian for the minors/plaintiffs.3. Before the trial court it was prayed that the minors/plaintiffs have no source of income and that they are dependant only on their mother and other relatives. A prayer was made that they should be exempted from paying the court fee. Their application was supported by an affidavit of Smt.Rashmi Sethi. The report of SDM was also called and this is an indisputable fact that the SDM reported that the minors are indigent persons. The st...

Kamal Gupta Vs. Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi51; 2007(99)DRJ444

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. In these appeals, the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein is under challenge. The issue raised in these appeals being similar, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.2. The issue that was raised before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court is with regard to exact and intended meaning of the word 'borrower' as defined under Section 2(f) read with Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002( hereinafter called 'the Act'). By referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Act it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the definition of the word 'borrower' and the meaning given thereto would not and cannot extend to include legal representatives of the original borrower inasmuch as the said expression relates only to the person who...

Kuljit Singh and Co. Vs. Engineering Projets (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR470(Delhi); 2007(99)DRJ610

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Petitioner Kuljit Singh & Co. has filed present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for appointment of an Arbitrator as according to it, respondent failed to appoint Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract dated 6.5.1996.2. Briefly narrated the case of the petitioner is that it is carrying on business under the name and style of Kuljit Singh & Co. The State of Punjab had awarded M/s Triveni Structural Limited (TSL) a contract for the work of 'concreting behind gate control and juncture reach including transition zone pen stock liners and plug of tunnels P1 and P2 in the Ranjit Sagar Dam (RSD) Project. M/s. Triveni Structural Limited awarded civil works of the said contract to Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., the respondent herein. After inviting tenders for work of concreting behind gate Control and junction reach including transition zone of tunnels P1 and ...

Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Ministry ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(224)ELT375(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. There is no major dispute between the parties on the facts of the case. The real dispute is with regard to the interpretation of the anti-dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short the Act) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules). The question that we are called upon to answer is whether the Designated Authority (Respondent No. 1) appointed under Rule 3 of the Rules, if called upon to do so, is obliged to carry out what is commonly known as a 'sunset review' or can it decline to do so.2. In our opinion, if it is called upon to do so, the Designated Authority is under an obligation to conduct a sunset review and the Central Government (Respondent No. 2) must consider the recommendation made by the Designated Authority and take a decision thereon.The facts:3. The broad facts of the case, as have been pointed out to us...