Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Mrs. Usha Maheshwari Vs. Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT463

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21st April. 2006 passed by learned MM whereby he dismissed the complaint of the complainant for non-appearance and acquitted the accused persons. It is stated by the appellant that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 25 lakh issued by the respondent in favor of appellant, for insufficient funds. The appellant had been diligently pursuing the complaint and a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the respondent. The appellant was leading the evidence in the case and she was partially cross examined on 3rd June, 2005. The respondent took 6 adjournments for appellant's cross examination for one or the other reason. The appellant was having a serious family problem. On 19th March, 2006, she was forced to vacate the house she was living in and her articles and belongings including case file were put on road. She had to...

Lt. Col. A.C. Tiwari Vs. Sh. Sudhir Kalra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC378

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The application for condensation of delay is allowed for the reasons given therein. The application stands disposed of.Crl. M. No. 1561/2003The application is allowed for the reasons given therein and petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is treated as an appeal. The application stands disposed of.Crl. A. No. 200/2003This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20th August, 2002 whereby the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed at 11.35 am for non-appearance of the complainant. It is stated by the appellant that 2 cheques, each of Rs. 1 2,500/- issued by the respondent got dishonoured and thereafter the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of CMM. During the pendency of proceedings of this complaint, father of the accused approached the appellant on 18th April, 2002 for compromise and a post dated cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was given ...

Mikuni Corporation Vs. Ucal Fuel Systems Limited,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR503(Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of this application/petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, made by the petitioner against the three respondents. The petitioner had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (in short 'JVA') with respondent No. 2 on 20th December, 1988. The relevant Clauses of the agreement read as under:1. Definitions1.1 The term 'Products' as used in the joint venture agreement means the products which are shown on the attached Annex 'A' and which UFS plans to manufacture and sell.5. Non-Competiton with the Business of UFSDuring the term of this agreement each of the parties hereto agrees not to manufacture, have manufactured or sell, have sold, in India any types of products which are the same as the Products for which MIC gives technical knowhow to UFS under the collaboration agreements. This obligation is binding on subsidiaries, affiliated companies and holding companies of both parties.9.0 ConfidentialityEach party ...

Srimohan Tayal Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT506; [2008(117)FLR79]; (2008)IILLJ606Del

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has impugned the demand raised by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner relating to contribution towards the provident fund on the ground that the petitioner is not an employer as contemplated under Section 2 of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and merely being a director of the private limited company, the petitioner has not become liable for the demands raised by the respondent No. 1. 2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this petition are that a notice dated 4th May, 1989 bearing No. 549/PF/38/7435 was issued in the name of the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2 and to pay a sum of Rs. 18,012.75/- on account of dues of the firm M/s. National Offset Works. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that M/s. National Offset Works is only a trade name in which the business was carried on by M/s Allahabad Law Journal Company Ltd which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. According to ...

Mrs. Vaneeta Khanna and anr. Vs. Shri Rajeev Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT356

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.IA Nos. 1388/2007 and 4939/20071. By this order, I shall dispose of the above two IAs moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.2. The plaintiffs in the instant suit are husband and wife. They had filed a suit before learned Additional District Judge under Section 5 and 6 of Specific Relief Act contending therein that in pursuance of sale transaction with defendant No. 2, who was a G.P.A holder of defendant No. 1, they became owner of property No. 8/289, Sunder Vihar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi after payment of full sale consideration and execution of agreement to sell, GPA, Special Power of Attorney by defendant No. 2 in favor of plaintiffs. The vacant physical possession of suit property was delivered to the plaintiff on 12th May 2004 and plaintiffs after taking possession had put their locks on the property. It was contended that after entering into the sale transactions and handing over the possession, defendant No. 1 and 2 colluded with each othe...

Vinay Bharat Ram and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]152CompCas7(Delhi)

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. Shri Vinay Bharat Ram and nine other individuals have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking the quashing of an order dated 18th December, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi ('ASJ') and seeking discharge in Complaint Case No. 349 of 2003 titled Registrar of Co. v. Vinay Bharat Ram and Ors.2. The aforementioned Complaint Case No. 349 of 2003 was filed by the Registrar of Companies ('ROC') under Section 58A(10) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act') for alleged contravention of Section 58A(9) of the Act. The complaint states that the Petitioners and two others were the 'Directors/Officers of the Company i.e. DCM Limited and were under a statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 58A of the Act. It is stated that upon a technical scrutiny of the balance sheet of the company as on 31st March, 2000 it was found that the company had not complied with an order dated 10th Sept...

Chairman, National Productivity Council and anr. Vs. Association of Em ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT618; 2009(3)SLJ434(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal arises out of the civil writ petition filed by the respondent which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the order dated 16th October, 1998. While doing so, the learned Single Judge relied upon an earlier decision of a Single Bench in CW No. 3790/1995. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge held that the respondents who were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- effective from 01.01.1986 as such a pay scale is being provided to the Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the Central Secretariat Service. 2. The writ petition was filed in this Court with the issue as to whether the Stenographers and Assistants working in the National Productivity Council are entitled to the similar pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- which has been given to the Assistants/Stenographers Gr.'C' working in the Central Secretariat Service in view of the recommendat...

Sunil Dua Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)203

ORDER1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dt. 24th Feb., 2006 passed by Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in IT(SS)A No. 75/Del/2001 relevant for the block assessment period 1st April, 1987 to 16th Jan., 1998.2. Three issues have been raised by learned Counsel for the assessee. It is firstly contended that the warrant of authorisation drawn up in favor of the Addl. Director of IT was not valid and, thereforee, the search under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was itself illegal and invalid.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the assessed in this regard and find that the expression 'Dy. Director' who is admittedly competent to issue a warrant of authorization includes an Addl. Director, in terms of the Notification No. SO 3862 dt. 6th Nov., 1979 issued by the CBDT: That being the position, all the authorities below have rightly held that the Addl. Director was competent enough to issue the warrant of authorization. There is no challenge raised by the assessed to the va...

National Housing Bank Vs. Mal Chand Periwal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)BC606

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this application filed on behalf of the plaintiff, a judgment on admissions is being sought. The plaintiff had filed this suit for specific performance of the contract dated 19.3.1993 which is styled as a letter of subscription whereunder the defendants 1 and 2 had undertaken to buy back 2,00,000 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10/- each from the plaintiff after a period of five years, upon the plaintiff making a demand for the same. In the alternative, the plaintiff also prayed for an appropriate decree directing the defendants 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 42,69,726/- by way of compensation together with simple interest @ 15% per annum from 1.11.2000 till the date of payment or realisation. Prayers were also made for pendente lite and future interest @ 15% per annum as well as for costs of the suit.2. The plaintiff's claim is based on several documents. The first document which has been referred to by the ...

Prakash Solvex and Prakash Soya Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals on behalf of M/s Prakash Solvex and M/s Prakash Soya were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.In Appeal No. E/822/2005 (M/s Prakash Solvex), the appellant has been asked to pay duty of Rs. 11,19,682/- and penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. In Appeal No. E/828/2008 (M/s Prakash Soya Ltd.), the demand is for Rs. 9,00,968/- as excise duty.2. It may be stated, at the outset, that in the case of M/s Prakash Solvex, the appellant does not dispute the demand to the extent of Rs. 42,427/- as duty leviable on shortage of oil and Rs. 1,02,975/- on clearance of refined edible oil without payment of duty, and likewise in the case of M/s Prakash Soya Ltd. the demand of Rs. 1,02,975/- on clearances of refined edible oil is not in dispute. As a matter of fact, learned Counsel for the appellants stated that the said amounts have already been paid by the appellants.3. The case of the appellants is that, they are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE d...