Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mukesh Prashar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT221
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. V.K. Malik accepts notice. With consent of counsel for the parties, the petition was heard for disposal.2. The petitioner, accused of having committed offences under Sections 392 read with Section 452 IPC, has been charged by an impugned order dated 09.01.07, of the Additional Sessions Judge. The order of charge has been attacked in these proceedings only to the extent that it has indicted the petitioner and charged him for the offence under Section 397 IPC.3. The allegations in the proceedings are that the complainant, Champa Devi, let in some people to her house. One of them introduced himself as a friend of her son. Later one of them allegedly threatened her, compelled her to keep quiet at the point of a revolver and with the co-accused robbed jewellery and other valuables from the house and decamped with them.4. During the course of investigation, the petitioner and two other persons Javed Akhtar and Saleem were arrested. Saleem and Javed Ak...
Smt. Neera Singh Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: I(2007)DMC542
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing/setting asideorder dated 25th April, 2006 passed by, Additional Sessions Judge whereby the learned ASJ observed that no charge was made out against two minor girls namely Kamlesh and Mamta Rani, sister in laws of the complainant (husband'ssisters) under Section 498A of the IPC.2. A perusal of the FIR would show that the allegations against the two minor girls are that on the directions of their mother they stopped doinghouse hold work and they used to tell her 'bhabhi you have not brought gold items for us, how we will give reply to our friends'. Complainant after narrating The words used by respondent stated that it had become clear to her that her in -laws were greedy and they were making demands of gold ring, gold chain etc. fromher.3. Considering the allegations made by complainant in her statement to The police and in...
Father Shepherd Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT67; 2007(96)DRJ544
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge dated 17th December, 1998 whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant of offence under Section 376 IPC as well as against the order of sentence dated 19th December, 1998 whereby the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant known as Father Shepherd used to take tuitions/teach children at his home. The prosecutrix aged around 19 years, seemed to be poor in study and was studying in 7th standard. She had started taking tuition from him only a week before this incident. On 3rd May, 1995 she went to the house of accused at 7/25 Nehru Nagar, New Delhi. Three young children, one aged three years, another five years and the third one a girl aged seven years, were already there in the house apart from the accused. On her reaching at the house of the accused for tuition, the accused told the el...
Abdul Gafoor Vs. State of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ287
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17th May, 2004 passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.15,000/- each on the two counts.2. The learned Counsel has not argued the appeal on merits, but only on the order of sentence. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the order of sentence was contrary to law and the sentence awarded to appellant was not as per the provisions of the Act. He submits that the appellant was convicted under the unamended provisions of Explosive and Substance Act, 1908 and the sentence under Section 4(b) reads as under:4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property - any person who unlawfully and maliciously - (a) ... (b) ... shall, whether any explosion does or do...
S.M. Kapoor Vs. Govt. of Nct and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 139(2007)DLT205
Rekha Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner is on the post of Post Graduate Teacher since 25.2.1982 in Mukherjee Memorial Senior Secondary School Shahdara Society, who is respondent No. 2 in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 is not holding Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for appointment to the post of Principal of the said school even though the post is lying vacant since 1.8.2005. According to the petitioner, under the Recruitment Rules governing appointment to the post of Principal, he is qualified to be considered. He, thereforee, prays that respondent No. 1 be directed to hold DPC for appointment to the post of Principal and he may also be considered for appointment on the said post.2. The relief claimed by the petitioner has not been opposed by the respondent. It is submitted by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the respondent is prepared to hold the DPC and if the petitioner is found eligible for appointment to the post of Principal...
Opel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ202CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. None for the appellant. Accordingly, we are disposing of the appeal after pursuing record. Heard the learned SDR.2. The service tax demand in the present case is in regard to commission earned by the appellant for "procuring orders and passing on the same to the principal for execution". The impugned order has stated that this activity is service of clearing and forwarding and thus confirmed service tax demand. We may read the operative portion of the order: I find that it has been admitted by the appellant that what they actually did, was to introduce two parties i.e. purchaser and seller of the goods and where their deal materialized, they got commission from the party. They have however, contended that this is not regular business and they are not appointed agents by any party i.e. purchaser or seller and hence the services provided by them are not covered under the category of C&F Agent as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1944. In the instant case the appellants...
Amba Polytubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ206CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax and penalties. The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. One lakh out of the total demand of Rs. 1,34,136/-.2. The contention of the applicant is that during the period for which they received the commission. There was no Service Tax on the service provided by the applicant. The amount is confirmed only on the Ground that commission is received when the exemption from payment of Service Tax was withdrawn. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and penalties are waived. The stay petition is allowed as Indicated above....
Smt. Shyama Malhotra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT210
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner No. 1 is the mother of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a retired Government servant. The petitioner No. 2 is currently a Government servant and is serving as a senior officer in the Indian Police Service. The question involved in the present petition is with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred on account of the medical treatment provided to the petitioner No. 1.2. The petitioner No. 1 underwent surgical intervention at the Nephrology Department of Batra Hospital during 25.5.2005 to 18.8.2005. At that point of time, the petitioner No. 1 was a retired public servant having been an employee of the Central Government till 31.10.1985. The petitioner No. 1 did not have a CGHS card in her own name but her name was included in petitioner No. 2's card as a dependent.3. The petitioner No. 2 submitted the claim for the medical treatment provided to the petitioner No. 1 as indicated above. The claim was...
Nawab Consultants for Ideas Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)CTLJ292(Del); 138(2007)DLT5
Anil Kumar, J.1. The main dispute in this writ petition is whether the petitioner was awarded the contract for supply of Godrej chairs or chairs equivalent to Godrej chairs. The allegation of the petitioner is that he was awarded contract for supply of chairs equivalent to Godrej and consequently on supplying the chairs equivalent to Godrej his EMD could not be forfeited by letter dated 08.05.2006 nor the agreement could be rescinded by rejection letter dated 12.05.2006 and in the circumstances the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to recall the tender permit and petitioner be allowed to participate in the fresh tender.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm of Sh. Subhash Ahuja who is in the business of manufacturing furniture of all kinds and he is alleged to have a pool of talented artisans with expertise in the area of manufacturing furniture and he has successfully completed vario...
Canara Bank Vs. Mr. V.K. Grover and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2007
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT194; (2007)IIILLJ215Del
Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 28th February, 2004, passed by the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court wherein it was held that the respondent applicant therein, was entitled to stagnation increment.2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of the present petition are as follows. The respondent was appointed in the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited, as Clerk on 4th September, 1972. He was promoted as Head Clerk on 11th November, 1980 and then to the post of Special Assistant on 11th November, 1981. The respondent was then promoted to the officer cadre on 7th January, 1983. Thereafter, the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank was amalgamated with the petitioner bank w.e.f. 24th August, 1985. Accordingly, w.e.f. 24th August, 1985, the respondent became an employee of the petitioner bank at the officer cadre. Vide order dated 19th September, 1986, the respondent was transferred to the Sikanderab...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »