Delhi Court May 2008 Judgments

Kamlesh Babulal Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ78

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. This petition was initially instituted challenging the order dated 30.10.2002 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi (ACMM) under Section 7 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Act). The ACMM held that there existed a prima facie case in support of the requisition and recommended to the Central Government that the petitioner be ordered to be extradited to the requisitioning foreign state i.e., USA. This Court, while issuing notice of the petition, had on 21.11.2002 directed that the petitioner shall not be extradited. Vide interim order dated 15.10.2004 in the petition, it was noted that though the order dated 21.11.2002 had only restrained extradition of the petitioner but the Central Government, though not so restrained, had not acted upon the recommendation of the ACMM and had not passed any order on the request for extradition. This Court, vide order dated 15.10.2004, ordered that the petitioner may submit to the Centr...

Ex. Hav. Omprakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT606; 2009(3)SLJ430(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 25.01.1972 and sought voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds due to domestic problems in December, 1991. The petitioner was also assessed at 20 per cent disability attributable to military service. However, in view of the own request of the petitioner, the petitioner was released from service with 20 per cent disability. The PCDA(P), however, rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension on the ground that the disability of the petitioner was only 14-19 per cent and thus below the benchmark of 20 per cent. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Re-Survey Medical Board on 16.08.1996 when his disability was again assessed by the Medical Board at 30 per cent but the PCDA(P) again reduced the same to 14-19 per cent.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before an Appellate Committee which was also rejected on 20.09.1999. The petitioner appeared before the Re-Survey Medical Board...

Dr. V.K. Bindal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ317

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In these two petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code), the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi under Section 156(3) of the Code, directing the concerned SHO to lodge an FIR on the basis of the complaint made by the complainant.2. The background facts may first be stated. The complainant Murari Lal Goel had filed a writ petition (Criminal) No. 680/1997 before this Court for registration of FIR as no FIR was registered despite lapse of considerable period on his complaint to police. The Division Bench of this Court issued directions which led to registration of FIR No. 635/1998 under Section 304A IPC against the petitioners. The police filed the chargesheet in November, 1999 before the Magistrate. One of the documents relied upon in the chargesheet was an enquiry report prepared by a committee headed by Dr. U.A. Kaul. This enquiry w...

NavIn Fluorine International Ltd. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorat ...

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order is delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member, Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange : 2. These appeals are filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/101-103/DD(AKL)/B/2004 dated 31.01.2004 passed by (he Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai imposing penalty of Rs. 40,00,000 (Rupees forty lakh only) against the appellant, M/s. Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Mumbai for contravention of provisions of Section 8(3) r/w Section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for not submitting the required evidence for import of goods against two remittances of foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 24,93,581 and Rs. 26,42,145. Full dispensation was granted in favour of the appellants by pro-deposit order of this Tribunal dated 21.07.2005 where these appeals are taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. We have heard elaborate arguments from Shri Abhishek Rao, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA, who represented for the respondent and gone thr...