Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Cadbury (India) Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC413

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of food products falling under sub-heading 1803.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 18.12.1997, the central excise officers visited the factory of the appellants and verified the stock of the finished goods.The said officers detected shortage and excess of various finished goods in comparison with the balance shown in RG-1 register. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 2,00,217/- and imposition of penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposed redemption fine of Rs. 750/- in respect of the excess seized goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the adjudication order.2. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there was no shortage of goods. In fact the alleged short quantity wa...

Constable Satish Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 28.08.2004, 31.03.2005 and 24.05.2004 (Annexures A-1 to A-3) whereby a punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service permanently has been awarded to him.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 11.10.1993. Departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the following Summary of Allegations, in respect of the applicant and certain other officers, was issued: It is alleged that on 07.06.2003 at about 7.00 PM Rajiv Bhola beat up an eight year age beggar type boy who is son of a T.S.R. Driver. The boy has suffered injuries and a crowd had gathered. Const. Satish Kumar No. 1801/E allegedly brought both of them to the Police Station Vivek Vihar, where HC Suresh Kumar No. 456/E arrested Rajiv Bhola Under Section 92/93/97 D.P. Act. He was given some minor beating at the Police Station. Subsequently, his uncle Suresh Kumar B...

Thounaojam Shyamkumar Singh Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ150

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of the bail application of the accused who was arrested on 2.10.2006 along with two associates from IGI Airport while going to Nepal.2. As per the prosecution case two associates of the applicant and other accused were active members of United National Liberation Front (UNLF), a banned militant outfit and from the possession of some of them, a pen drive and one Compact Disc (CD) were recovered. According to the IO the pen drive contained information about the developments relating to armed forces of India in North East area, including Manipur; it also contained information concerning arms, ammunition and explosives available with UNLF as well as a list of the members of the group. According to the IO, the militant outfit, UNLF has 2000 cadets approximately on its payroll, who are involved in anti-national activities.3. The case against the present applicant is that he is an active member of KYKL a banned militant outfit of Manipur, and was...

Amit Kochar and anr. Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT393

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the order on charge under Section 302/34 IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on dated 15.07.2006, against the accused petitioner.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that according to the prosecution, the first Petitioner, Amit Kochar had been carrying on business of ladies garments at No. 630, Mukherjee Nagar and his cousin Rajeev Kochar @ Monty, the second Petitioner runs a chicken shop from a near by place. The Co-accused Gyanender Pal and Devender alias Ram are employees of the first Petitioner. The deceased Raj Kumar was a tailor by profession and used to take orders from the Petitioner and return stitched dresses for which he was paid.3. As a routine the deceased had taken an order from the first Petitioner; but apparently delayed returning it, which agitated the employer. The first Petitioner called his cousin and both of them along with the two co-accused...

Cbi Vs. Suresh Nanda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT123; 2007(94)DRJ753

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present criminal revision petition assails an order of the Special Judge dated 15.1.2007, permitting the respondent accused (hereafter referred to as 'the respondent') to travel abroad for 15 days upon imposition of certain conditions.2. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 9.10.2006 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against several persons, including the petitioner. The FIR alleged that on the basis of a reference received from the Ministry of defense, a preliminary enquiry was held which indicated that several persons conspired during the period 1998-2001 in the matter of procurement of 7 Barak Anti Missile defense Systems (AMD) and 200 missiles from M/s IAI Israel and its sister concern M/s Rafael, Israel. The FIR alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy the then defense Minister and the then Chief of Naval Staff abused their position and showed undue favor in the award of contract to M/s IAI Israel.3. The FIR also alleged that the resp...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena Devi Alias Veena Kumari Wid ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ69

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company raises the question of limited liability of the Insurance Company.2. Brief facts of this case are that on 9th August, 1982 deceased Sh. Vinod Kumar was traveling in Bus No. DHP 3430 from Narela to Delhi, when a Truck No. DIG-3919, driven by Respondent No. 5, came from Randhawa side and struck against the left portion of the Bus. The impact of the accident was such that the engine of the said bus was thrown away and the said Sh. Vinod Kumar received fatal injuries whereas, other persons received grievous injuries. The widow and two minor children of said Vinod Kumar, deceased are Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and the widowed mother (who died during the pendency of the case and was deleted from the array of the parties) filed claim petition seeking compensation against the Driver, owner and the Insurer of the above said truck alleging therein that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truc...

icici Bank Limited Vs. Kaptan Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC586; 139(2007)DLT501

J.M. Malik, J.1. The appellant herein filed a suit under Order 37 CPC and application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC before Trial Court on 01.12.2006. The appellant/plaintiff advanced a loan in the sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- to the defendant/respondent for purchase of a vehicle in respect of which hypothecation-cum-loan-agreement dated 01.05.2004 was executed. It was agreed that the respondent/defendant would pay off the loan in 35 monthly Installments of Rs. 17,803/- each commencing from 07.06.2004 to 07.03.2007. The appellant herein served legal notice upon the defendant dated 17.11.2006. The defendant did not pay even a single penny towards the above said loan. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that the defendant is trying to part with the hypothecated vehicle and is trying to remove the same from the bounds of this city. The plaintiff also moved application under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for appointment of receiver to take over the possession of the vehicle, namely, Scorpio/DX TC2 Car bear...

S.S. Srivastava Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ377

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this petition under Section 300 read with Sections 276 and 239 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, Dr. S.S. Srivastava has sought probate of a document asserted to be the last Will and Testament dated 28th August, 1977 purportedly executed by late Shri Ram Singh Srivastava. The petitioner has arrayed his four sisters Mrs. Shashi Srivastava, Ms. Kusum Srivastava, Ms. Suman Srivastava and Mrs. Nayan Srivastava as respondent Nos. 2-5 in the petition. Public notice of the filing of the petition was directed to be published in the Delhi and the overseas edition of `The Statesman' by the order dated 20th December, 1999. On the same date, notice was also ordered to be issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and the respondents. Such publication was duly effected in the issue dated 8th April, 2000 in the local and overseas edition of `The Statesman'. No objections were filed by the general public, however the respondent No. 2 filed an application being is No. 434...

Dcm Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Swaroop and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT114; [2007(113)FLR858]; (2007)2LLJ938Del

Hima Kohli, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner management against the order dated 21st February, 1990 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), holding that the petitioner management is liable to pay to respondent No. 1, 10% simple interest on the gratuity amount, from the date the gratuity became payable, to the date on which the amount was deposited with the Controlling Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner management has preferred the present writ petition.2. The brief facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that the petitioner management is a limited company registered under the Companies Act and the owner of Textile Mills known as Delhi Cloth Mills situated at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. Respondent No. 1 joined the services of the petitioner management in the year 1947 and retired from service on 23rd October, 1983. The petitioner states that respondent No. 1 wa...

Shanti India (P) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT511; 2007(94)DRJ550

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the action of the respondents in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 9th November, 2005 published in the Times of India on 24th November, 2005 purporting to acquire land bearing Khasra No. 125, measuring 5 bighas, 8 biswas, situated in the revenue Estate of village Mehrauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'said land') in violation of the statutory limitation period of one year from the publication of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act prescribed for the issuance of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act.2. The brief facts of this case as per the case set up by the petitioner are as follows:(a) On 2nd February 1999, a Joint survey of the said land was conducted by the respondent No. 4, i.e., DDA/L & B Deptt.(b) On 15th November, 1999 a Notification dated 11th November, 1999 under Section 4 of the Act was publ...