Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

H.R. Kapoor Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4632; 149(2008)DLT591

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seek the quashing of criminal complaints filed against the plantation companies by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for offences under Sections 11B, 12(1-B) read with Section 24 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (`SEBI Act') read with Regulations 5(1), 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 (`CIS Regulations'). These petitions raise common questions of law and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the early 1990s, a large number of plantation companies came to be incorporated. Each of them promised attractive returns to persons prepared to invest their monies in what were known as 'collective investment schemes'. When it transpired that many of these schemes were in fact non-starters, and the investors were not getting back their monies, th...

The Dir. Gen. Works Cpwd Vs. Davinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT272; 2008(101)DRJ536; [2008(117)FLR471]; (2008)IILLJ619Del; 2008(3)SLJ393(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.C.M. No. 402/2008 (exemption)Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.LPA 13/2008 and CM Nos. 400/2008(delay) & 401/2008(stay).1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant and upholding the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi(hereinafter called the 'Tribunal'). 2. The respondent was initially employed on 26th June, 1982 as a Wireman on muster roll and was posted in the Asian Games, Electrical Division-I, CPWD, Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. His services were terminated but the appellants themselves reinstated the respondent with effect from 23rd November,1991 with full back wages and all the consequential benefits. The respondent is a qualified Electrician with a Diploma from ITI, and he has also license of Wireman, Grade-II. There were about 50 workers working ...

Shri Madan Gopal Singh Vs. Shri Swarn Lata Abrol and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT78

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) to impugn the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-419/2006 filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 14(D) of the Act, whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition and has proceeded to pass an eviction order against the petitioner.2. The tenanted premises in question is situated on the rear side of the ground floor of property No. M-27-C Market, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The admitted position is that the upper floors and the rear side of the ground floor of the said property have the sanctioned user as residential, while the front portion on the ground floor has sanctioned user as commercial. The respondent along with her married son and his family are residing on the upper floors. The tenanted premises in question adm...

Parshotam Lal Vs. Surjeet Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT776; II(2008)DMC253; 2008(103)DRJ416; (2008)151PLR24

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. Brief facts for deciding the present appeal inter-alia are that the appellant husband and the respondent wife jointly filed a petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 4th August, 2007 and the said petition was registered as HMA case No. 656/2007. The learned Trial Court heard both the parties on the same date after recording statement of the parties and first motion as envisaged under Section 13B(1) HMA Act was allowed. Thereafter the parties had moved application under Section 151 CPC seeking waiver of six months period so as to enable them to file the second motion as envisaged under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said waiver application moved by the parties was allowed and on the second motion respective statements of the parties were recorded and the matter was heard by learn...

Real Mathematic Classes Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur dated 26.4.2007/3.5.2007 imposing penalty at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day from the date service tax became payable till the actual date of payment under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The order was passed in exercise of suo moto revisional power under Section 84 of the Finance Act. Section 84 of the Act lays down that the Commissioner may call for the record of proceedings in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order, make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, pass such order thereon as he thinks fit after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Section 76 of the Act provides for imposition of penalty on failure to pay service tax. For easy reference Section 76 may be quoted as hereunder- SECTION 76. Penalty for failure to collect or pay service tax- Any person, liable to pay service tax i...

Rajasthan Tours Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 13.3.2007 upholding the adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.10.2006. By the said order the Assistant Commissioner had directed recovery of service tax credit of Rs. 17,5,28/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and interest at the applicable rate under Section 75 of the Finance Act, and imposed penalties @ Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76 of the said Act and of Rs. 17,528/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are these. The appellant is a tour operator. For the tour operator services provided by it from April to September 2004 it availed service tax credit amounting to Rs. 17,528/- on mobile phones under Rule 3(6) of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002. On 4.7.2005 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for proposed recovery of the said amount and imposit...

National Productivity Council Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Section 35 of the Act mandates pre-deposit of duty and penalty in accordance with the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority.2. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in terms of the said provisions vide order dated 1.8.2007. The deposit was to be made by 10.8.2007 and the compliance was to be reported by 17.8.2007. As the circumstances would have it, the appellant deposited the amount but after expiry of time on 17.8.2007. Compliance was reported on 28.8.2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order dated 1.8.2007 had not been complied with and accordingly dismissed the appeal by the impugned order.3. On behalf of the Revenue, a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the necessary clearance from the Com...

Smt. Kamla Devi W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Although there is great opposition about the maintainability of the applications because of limitation, since the issues require to be gone into, in general interest, and errors or over sights require to be attended to as suggested, the RAs are allowed. Original Applications are restored to its original position. Registry is directed to list all these pending cases before the Larger Bench as the self same issue is pending before the Tribunal. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, procedures are hand maids to justice and hurdles, if any posed because of the presence of procedural rules could be appropriately explained, whether they are urged by the applicants or the respondents.2. Let a copy of this order be placed in RA 326/2004, RA 328/2004, RA 333/2004 and RA 334/2004....

Jagat Talkies Distributors and ors. Vs. M.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ733

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.C.M. Nos. 1922-23/2008 1922-23/2008 (exemption)Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Applications stands disposed of.LPA 57/2008 & C.M. Nos. 1921/2008(delay)1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25th October, 2007 which was passed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 upholding the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer on 16th February, 2005. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside and quashed as the reaso...

Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR365]; (2009)ILLJ731Del

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by the Petitioner seeking the quashing of a complaint Application No. SD/C1/Jan/2002 titled O.P. Arya v. Sanjeev Gupta pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), New Delhi for the offence under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (Act).2. The cause title of the complaint reads as under: 1. Name of the complainant. O.P. Arya and his address Minimum Wages Inspector, Office of Asst. Labour Commissioner, (Distt. South) Pushpa Bhawan, Pushp Vihar, 2. Name of the accused and his address: Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, (MD) Hindustan Coca Cola Mkt. (P) Ltd. A-22 MCIE, Mathura Road, N.D. 44.3. Para 7 of the complaint reads as under:That the above named accused person is responsible for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offences.4. The gist of the complaint is that on an inspection of the establishment on January 2, 2002 it was found that the ac...