Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Radhey Shyam Vs. the State (N.C.T.) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ60

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal has challenged the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1999 arising out of F.I.R. No. 673 of 1999, Police Station Mangol Puri, whereby the learned Judge vide his judgment dated 31.10.2005, while acquitting the co-accused Ajay Soni and Subhash has convicted Radhey Shyam, the appellant herein, for an offence under Section 302 IPC as also 201 IPC and further by order dated 7.12.2005, has sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC together with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, further imprisonment for one month and under Section 201 IPC, imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, further imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:.the deceased Pramod Kumar Goel aged 31 years was dealing in cloth from house No. 9/5030, Kaushal Pu...

Smt. Sunita Gulathi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Mi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(218)ELT659(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Rule D.B.2. The Petitioner sat for a written examination conducted by the Director General of Inspection for being licensed as a Custom House Agent in terms of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). She sat for the written examination on 14th June, 2004 and was declared successful on 20th April, 2005.3. In terms of Regulation 8(1) of the Regulations, an examination is to be conducted by the Director General of Inspection twice a year. Regulation 8(2) of the Regulations postulates not only a written examination but also an oral examination. Consequently, on reading of Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 8(2) of the Regulations, the written examination as well as the oral examination is required to be conducted twice a year. Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 8(2) of the Regulations read as follows:8 Examination of the applicant:- (1) Any applicant whose application is received within the last date specified in the no...

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Commissioner, Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT645; [2007(115)FLR122]

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), thereby directing it to reconsider the application of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate grounds.2. In a nutshell, facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was employed in the Horticulture Department of the MCD as a Chowkidar and he expired on 1st June, 2003 during the tenure of his service. On 11th August, 2003, the petitioner moved an application to be appointed as a Chowkidar on compassionate grounds, but the same was rejected by the MCD on 3rd March, 2006 and the petitioner was informed of the said rejection vide letter dated 29th May, 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner again applied for the same post on 21st June, 2006, but her application was rejected and vide letter dated 31st August, 2006, issued by the MCD, she was informed that since her application had already been reject...

Monnet Industries Limited Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner made on 25.7.2005 rejecting the remission claims of the appellant in respect of 387 qtls. of molasses of the season 2003-2004.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and had made remission applications dated 06.11.2004 for 146.50 qtls.and 16.12.04 for 240.50 qtls. of molasses. According to the appellant, the total shortage of molasses, which came to 387 qtls., was only 0.17% of the total quantity of 227888 qtls. of molasses produced in the season of 2003-2004. Since the storage loss was less than 2%, the appellant claimed benefit of circular dated 18.07.2003, which condoned the storage losses of molasses upto 2%.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ramala Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I reported in 2007 (213) ELT 361, in which identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee.4. The learned authorized r...

Siya Ram S/O Late Summer Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought direction to the respondents to pay him pension as a Group-D employee or alternatively to allow him to work on the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA, for short) till the age of 65 years, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as EDDA by the respondents on 07.02.1973. In the year 1995, the applicant was considered for selection to Group-D post by the respondents in terms of their rules of appointment for the said post. Selection Committee recommended the name of the applicant and, upon appointment, he joined as a Group-D employee on 05.05.1995. The applicant retired on 30.09.2003 upon attaining the age of super annuation (60 years), however, no pension was sanctioned to him. Hence the OA.3. The applicant has contended that he belongs to SC category and, in terms of the age relaxation given to SC candidates, he was appointed in Group-D cadre at the age of 51 years. Thus, at ...

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Karamchand Appliances (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)183; 2007(35)PTC341(Del)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application has been made by the plaintiff for amendment of the suit. The plaintiff wants to add paragraphs 4(a) and 24(a) to the suit so as to bring on record that the plaintiff was registered proprietor of 'JUMBO GOLD' under Trade Mark and the Registration Certificate was issued to the plaintiff on 8.10.2003. The plaintiff also wanted to amend the prayer clause that the defendants and its agents be restrained from using the trade mark JUMBO or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff namely 'JUMBO GOLD'.2. The application is opposed by the respondent/defendant. The plea of the defendant is that the suit of the plaintiff was filed alleging that the plaintiff was the owner of trade mark 'JUMBO'. This contention of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant in the written statement on the ground that word 'JUMBO'was being used by many manufacturers of mosquito coil, mosquito repellent liquids and by other pr...

Madan Lal and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC562

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No. 477/2006Dated : 15/9/2006Under Section 498A/304B/34 IPCP.S. Mandawali1. Petitioners who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the unfortunate girl Renu @ Ritu pray that they may be admitted to bail.2. Petitioners are in judicial custody since 14.9.2006. First petitioner is now aged 61 years. Second petitioner is now aged 59 years.3. Renu was married to the son of the petitioners on 18.4.2006 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. She committed suicide on 14.9.2006.4. On the basis of statement made by her father to the SDM instant FIR was registered. In a nutshell, father of the deceased stated that the in- laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the dowry which he had given at the time of marriage of his daughter. He stated that besides clothes, utensils, gold and silver jewellery and cash in sum of Rs. 2 lacs, he had gifted a Santro car to his son-in-law. He stated that immediately after the marriage, the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and b...

Sushila Devi Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)1CompLJ155(Del); [2008]83SCL62(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Inter alia, it was stated that Section 11 of the Act casts upon SEBI the duty to protect the interest of investors in securities and that SEBI was enjoined upon to promote the development of and to regulate the securities market through appropriate measures. 2. It was stated that the last decade had witnessed initiative by private entrepreneurs to undergo plantation activities on a commercial scale. It was noted that promoters would invest minimal amounts in such ventures. They would raise funds from ordinary investors in the absence of regulatory mechanisms. It was stated that the high returns promised under the schemes were questionable. It was stated that in the year 1997 certain guidelines were framed pertaining to plantation co...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Five Star Holidays

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]294ITR54(Delhi)

1. Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated January 6, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', in I.T.A. No. 5278/Del/96 relevant for the block assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.2. first issue urged by the Revenue in the present appeal is with regard to payment of a sum of Rs. 93,10,418 to one Ms. Magda towards consultancy fees by the assessed out of which an amount of Rs. 66,07,193 was disallowed by the Assessing Officer but allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The assessed was in the business of marketing time shares of various holiday resorts. For marketing the time shares, the assessed engaged some consultants from Europe including Ms. Magda. The assessed did not file returns and action was initiated against it by the Revenue on August 31, 1995, under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when certain documents were seized. The assessed then declared an undisclosed income of Rs. 37,11,233 claiming expenses on account of commission/consulta...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)547; [2009]311ITR235(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 17th March, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in I.T.A. No. 4937/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97.2. According to the Revenue a notice was sent to the assessed under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') on the ground that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income of the assessed had escaped assessment. The case of the assessed was that he had not received any such notice. The further case of the assessed was that it was only when he received a notice under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act that he came to know that a notice had been issued to him under Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessed mentioned this in his letter but nevertheless filed a return under protest.3. Two issues arose before the Tribunal in view of the contentions urged by the parties. The first was whether the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was actually received by ...