Delhi Court May 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.
Bharat Industrial Works (Bhilai) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC41
2. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties. The demand is confirmed In respect of the parts of wind operated electricity generators treating the same as excisable goods.3. The contention of the applicant is that earlier the demand in respect of the same goods were raised in the case of M/s Bhilai Engineering Corporation. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand proceedings on the ground that the parts of wind operated electricity generators are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.6/2000-CE. The Revenue reviewed the order and Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The contention is that in the present proceedings, the applicants were manufacturing parts of wing operated electricity generators and supplied the same to Bhilai Engineering Corporation and the Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order held that they are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 214/86 on the...
R.P. Bidani Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ497; (2007)IIILLJ983Del
Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Mr. R.P. Bidani, the appellant herein has challenged judgment dated 27th September, 2004 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1957/1989 titled Hindustan Lever Limited v. Industrial Tribunal-I and Anr. By the impugned judgment learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside order/award dated 4th February, 1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, inter alia, holding that the said tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by the respondent herein, M/s Hindustan Lever Limited-the management, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short).2. The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the present appeal may now be noticed. In 1953 the appellant was appointed as an accounts clerk in Hindustan Vanaspati Manufacturing Company Limited, Ghaziabad. He was working at Ghaziabad. The said company was later on amalgamated with the respondent company. The appellant...
Suman JaIn and ors. Vs. Jaimala JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi91
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is directed against order dated 18th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by defendants 7-10, praying for condensation of delay in filing the written statement. 2. In the suit filed by the respondents herein, the appellants namely, defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 10 did not file the written statement within the statutory period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short). Consequently, they filed an application seeking condensation of delay in fling the written statement. Objection was taken at that stage by the respondents/plaintiffs that the written statement has not been verified in accordance with law and is not accompanied by any affidavits which are statutorily required to be filed. Affidavits of defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 10 filed along with the written statement merely state that contents of affidavits are true and correct to my knowled...
Shri Ajay Agarwal Vs. Shri Vinod Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT438; 2007(96)DRJ216
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid two applications. First is filed by defendant No. 3 under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree/ judgment dated 11.11.2002 whereas I.A. No. 3811/2003, has been filed seeking condensation of delay in moving the first application.2. After being served with the summons in the suit, the defendants entered appearance on 5.11.1993 and filed written statement on 24.5.1994. Issues in the suit were framed on 14.10.1996. On the same day, the court fixed dates for trial as 29th, 30th, 31st August and 1st September 1999. The matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar on 14th February 1997 for scrutiny. Parties were given time to file additional documents, if any, within six weeks. Thereafter, proceedings were taken before Joint Registrar on 14th February 1997, 6.1.1998, 3.11.1998, 29.4.1999 and 2.7.1999. On none of these dates, defendants were present. Matter was listed before court on 30th A...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Smt. Rukmani Bansal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2770
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 20.11.1984, deceased, Krishan Kumar Bansal, aged 45 years received fatal injuries in a road accident involving jeep bearing No. DED-7749. He died. He was survived by his wife, 2 sons and father.2. Dependents filed a claim petition under Section 110-A read with Section 92-A of the M.V. Act 1939 claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/- on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident.3. After holding driver of the offending vehicle guilty of rash and negligent driving, vide award dated 23.8.1989, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to the dependents.4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, DDA/appellant preferred an appeal registered as FAO No. 30/1990.5. Respondents in the said appeal (dependents before the Tribunal) filed cross objections i.e. CM No. 2116/1990.6. While the said appeal and cross objections were pending decision, dependents moved a review petition before the learned Tribunal.7. Vide order dated 9.4.199...
Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. Santosh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi247; I(2007)DMC871
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The judgment dated 16.2.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal, HMA No 1113/01/97 seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty is challenged in this appeal under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(`Act'). 2. The parties were married on 16.5.1985. Three children were born to them. At the time of filing of the petition in the year 1997, the three children were aged about 10 years, 4 years and 2 years respectively.Case of the appellant 3. In his petition before the Trial Court, the appellant's case of cruelty was based on the following averments:(i) The appellant claimed that soon after the marriage, the respondent started behaving irrationally with the appellant and used to create embarrassing scenes with all the members of the family. It is claimed that the respondent was under the control of some super-natural power. She used to abuse the parents of the appellant. The appellant used to tak...
Vijay Nath Tiwari Vs. Surender and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1828
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Injured Vijay Nath Tiwari aged 22 years received injuries in a road accident which took place on 18.10.1996. He filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of injuries sustained by him in the said road accident.2. The case of the injured is that on 18.10.1996 he boarded a D.T.C. bus bearing No. DBP 6136. He further stated that while he was in the process of alighting from the bus, the driver of the bus, in a rash and negligent manner, started the bus as a result thereof he fell down from the bus resulting in a fracture of his left hand.3. Holding that the injured was himself responsible for the accident, the claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal. In so holding, Tribunal has noted DD entry No. 21A dated 18.10.1996. The said DD entry was purportedly recorded on the basis of the statement of injured. The DD entry records that when driver of the bus did not stop the bus at the bus stand where injured was to get down, injured...
Sushila and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ264
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants are the widow, sons and grand parents of the deceased late Shri Raja Ram. When the claim petition was filed on 19.10.1985, the widow of the deceased was aged 24 years. Minor sons were aged 4 years and 1 1/2 years respectively. Grand-father was aged 75 years. Age of the grand-mother of the deceased has not come on record.2. 22 years have gone by. When questioned whether the grand parents are alive, the learned Counsel for the appellants stated that she does not know. Adjournment was prayed for.3. Since the matter relates to an accident which took place in the 1985. and the appeal has remained pending in this Court since the year 1988 I had thought it advisable not to adjourn the matter. I had heard the arguments.4. By and under the impugned award dated 26.7.1988, claim petition has been dismissed principally on the ground that the alleged eyewitness, PW-3, Chittar Singh was a planted witness. The finding has been returned by the learned Judge noting ma...
M.S. Kaushik Vs. N.D.M.C. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: [2008]2STJ33(Delhi)
Rekha Sharma, J.1. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Bimla Kaushik was a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in N.P. Boys Secondary School No. 2, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, which is being run by respondent No. 1. On July 23, 2002, she had taken voluntary retirement. However, she was not paid her retrial benefits despite her repeated requests, representations and personal visits to the office of respondent No. 1. Unfortunately, on March 6, 2003 she died and, thereafter, it fell upon her husband to pursue the case with respondent No. 1. He did receive the benefits but belatedly.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a chart containing the details as to when the retiral benefits under each head were ultimately paid by respondent No. 1. These details are available on page No. 65 of the paper book. Counsel submits that Bimla Kaushik and, upon her death, her husband had to undergo lot of harassment on account of non-payment of her retiral benefits. They have three daughter...
Khukia Sema Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ189
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1997 arising out of F.I.R. No. 326 of 1996, registered at Police Station Naraina, whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 25.03.2004 has held the appellant, Khukia Sema, guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Amar Singh Negi. Further by his order dated 26.03.2004, has sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand) and in default thereof, Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the appellant has been awarded benefit of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:That accused, K. Sema, was working as Helper in the Mess of Army Base Workshop, Delhi, and the victim, Amar Singh Negi, was the Mess Commander as on 1.9.1996. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »