Delhi Court August 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.
Sher Singh Vs. the General Manager and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ161Del; 2008(2)SLJ366(Delhi)
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alias for directions to the respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and reinstate him in service with full back wages as also to compensate the petitioner for his malicious prosecution for 22 years.2. The brief facts of the case, as set up by the petitioner in the present writ petition, are that the petitioner was working as a Peon with the respondent bank since the year 1983. It may be noted that the records do not reflect any letter of appointment issued by the respondent Bank in favor of the petitioner. It is stated that in the year 1985, the Manager of the respondent bank lodged a complaint being FIR No. 343/85 with Police Station, Darya Ganj against the petitioner under Sections 420/468 of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is contended that after the FIR was lodged, the petitioner was placed under suspension and that the respondent Bank neither issued any charge- sheet to the petition...
Surender Singh Vs. the State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ350
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 913 of 2002, 76 of 2003, 799 of 2002 and 819 of 2002 seek to challenge common judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 141 of 2000, arising out of F.I.R. No. 59 of 2000, registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 9.9.2002 has held the appellants, Surender Singh, Rakesh and Arvind, guilty for offence under Sections 120B IPC, 363/120B IPC and under Sections 364A/120B IPC and has held appellant Parmod Kumari guilty for offence under Section 368 IPC. Further vide his separate order dated 19.9.2002, he has sentenced the appellants Surender Singh, Rakesh and Arvind to undergo imprisonment for seven years each and further and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 120B IPC. Further the said appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years each and further simple imprisonment f...
Rajeev Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR62
1. The applicant filed this applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax of Rs. 39,399/-. The applicant had already deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of hearing of the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).Demand of service tax is confirmed by treating the applicant as outdoor caterer.2. The applicant submitted that he is only running a canteen in the premises of M/s. Eicher Tractors. In these circumstances, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. Pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penalty is waived....
Garg Photo Films Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR66
1. Heard both sides and perused the record. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalty. The demand was confirmed after adding the value of the material in the photographic service. The contention of the applicant is that they were regularly paying service tax in respect of photographic service. The contention is that the Tribunal in the case of Shilpa Color Lab v. CCE 2007(5) S.T.R. 423 held that value of the goods and material used in photographic service cannot be included in the value of service for levy of service tax.The revenue relied upon stay order dt. 17-7-07 in the case of Roopkala Photo Gallery whereby the Tribunal directed the assessee to deposit whole of the amount of service tax.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and decision of the Tribunal, pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed. We find that the matter on the same issue is already on the regul...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Graphic (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)319
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') against the order dt. 2nd Sept., 2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') Delhi 'E' Bench in ITA No. 3210/Del/2003 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 vide which the Tribunal had deleted the penalty imposed by AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings, the AO from the perusal of the balance sheet noticed that the assessed had shown balance of Rs. 81,83,063 with Hong Kong Bank, Delhi representing dollar account. The assessed was required to show earnings out of this account on interest and exchange rate. Information was also called by the AO from the bank. Vide letter dt. 23rd June, 2001 the bank informed that as per the conversion rate of US$ on 31st March, 1998 the value of dollars in Indian currency was Rs. 92,98,123 as against Rs. 81,83,063 shown by the assessed. The difference o...
Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Dayal Singh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Delhi286
V.B. Gupta, J.1. This reference has been made to the High Court under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountant Act read with Chapter 7-F of the Delhi High Court Rules.2. Notice in this reference was issued to respondent No. 1 on 23rd January, 2006 but he could not be served by ordinary process. Accordingly, he was served by substituted service through publication in the newspaper 'Statesman' (New Delhi Edition). On 30th April, 2007 despite service by publication. Respondent No. 1 did not put in his appearance. Hence, vide order dated 23rd May, 2007, respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte.3. On 30th July, 2007 at the time of arguments also, none was present on behalf of respondent No. 1.4. As per statement of the case, Shri R.K. Goswami, Administrator, Delhi Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd. made a complaint against respondent No. 1 with the following allegations:That complainant had requested respondent No. 1 to complete the audit for the years 1987-88 to 1990-91 within a period of six months...
The Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Punjab and Si ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ74(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit under the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the 'said Code') for the recovery of Rs.5,92,98,176.57 which is stated to be due under ten bank guarantees executed by the defendant bank in favor of the plaintiff along with pendente lite and future interest @ 21 per cent per annum.2. It is averred that one Bhasin Associates (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bhasin Associates), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 was given a contract by M/s Larsen and Tubro Ltd. ( for short, 'L&T;' ) for the execution of civil and structural work at Chandrapur. Bhasin Associates is stated to have approached the plaintiff for a loan of Rs.4,00,00,000/-. It is claimed that Bhasin Associates were asked to get guarantees from a 'respectable' bank for the consideration of their request. On 29.09.1988, ten guarantees are stated to have been issued by the defendant of Rs. 40 Lakhs each, the details ...
Mr. Sanjiv Sangwan Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Sangwan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC108; 2007(97)DRJ341
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Order dated 26.7.2003 impugned in the present petition has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 28.1.2003 vide which order learned Matrimonial Judge granted a monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent (wife). Additionally, Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses was directed to be paid by the petitioner.2. Petitioner and the respondent were married as per Hindu rites and custom on 31.1.1990. The marriage soured. The husband and wife separated. 2 children born out of the wedlock are admittedly students of a reputed public school in Kodaikanal. Expenses of the 2 children are borne by the petitioner. 3. Seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 respondent stated that she had no source of income. That proprietory rights of a defunct factory by name of M/s.Solutions in Gurgaon belonged to her. She stated that the factory was lying closed and was a defunct unit.4. Qua the peti...
Mohd. Irfan Vs. Nisharia Begum
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: I(2008)DMC300
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowing Criminal Revision Petition No. 75/2004 filed by the respondent and as a consequence setting aside the order dated 1.8.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, brief pen profile of the relevant facts needs to be noted which are to the effect that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against the petitioner inter alias alleging that the two contracted a marriage on 19.3.1996 (should actually read 19.3.1995). She stated that she was abandoned by the petitioner and had no means to sustain herself. 3. The petitioner opposed the said petition inter alias pointing out that the parties had divorced as per a talaknama duly signed by both parties. He stated that professing Islamic faith till husband did not give the requisite consent as required by...
Texmaco Ltd. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas80(Delhi); [2009]93SCL69(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner had employed late Mohan Lal as its employee alleging that during course of employment petitioner had given possession of a residential quarter to Mohan Lal who had not returned possession thereof on retirement, a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act 1956 was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. During pendency of the complaint, Mohan Lal died. Petitioner's application to bring on record his legal heirs was dismissed by the learned ACMM vide order dated 23.8.2003.3. Petitioner's Crl. Rev. No. 23/2004 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 2.11.2003.4. Petitioner has challenged both orders with a prayer that application filed by the petitioner to bring on record legal heirs of late Mohan Lal be allowed.5. Reason given by the Courts below is that with the death of Mohan Lal a fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioner to institute fresh proceedings against the legal heirs of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »