Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments

Bhm (Now Ex Hav) Nirmal Singh Versus Union of India, Through Its Secre ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This petition has been brought for quashing the order of reprimand passed by the appropriate authority in the Summary Court Martial proceedings. Simultaneously, a prayer has also been made for setting aside the discharge order. In the course of arguments, it has also been submitted that the punishment of reprimand would come in the way of his promotion and, therefore, it is also required to be set aside. 2. Preliminary objection has been raised by counsel for the respondents that the petition for setting aside the order of reprimand in the SCM proceedings cannot be considered in view of the provision contained in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (the Act, for brevity), which reads: 3. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) . .. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx (o) service matters, in relation to the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), mean all matters relati...

Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 167(2010)DLT72

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Six accused; the husband, the mother-in-law, the elder brother of the husband, the wife of the elder brother of the husband and the two sisters of the husband of the deceased, Bharti were charged for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC. Four of them, the husband, the mother-in-law, the elder brother of the husband and the wife of the elder brother of the husband of the deceased were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC pertaining to the death of Bharti, who admittedly suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial house at around 3:00 P.M. on 28.04.2002. As a result of the burn injuries she died on 05.05.2002.2. Disbelieving the testimony of Krishan Lal PW-6, Shanti Devi PW-13 and Sunil Kumar PW-15, father, mother and brother of Bharti pertaining to dowry demands and cruelty towards the deceased by the family members save and except the appellants as also disbelieving the testimony of Krishan Lal pertaining to the alleged dyi...

Kishan Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 167(2010)DLT87

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide DD No. 96-B at the midnight; time being 12:40 midnight of 15th and 16th March 2003, the duty constable at PS Gokul Puri noted that information was received through police control room that it was informed about a lady having committed suicide at Shiv Vihar, 33 Road Som Bazar, Near Chuna Bhatti.2. ASI Darshan Kumar PW-10 along with Const. Ayaz Khan PW-19 left for the spot and at the matrimonial house of the appellant and his wife found the dead body of the wife of the appellant lying between 2 cots, on the floor.3. The dead body was seized and sent to the mortuary of GTB Hospital. Making an endorsement beneath the copy of the DD entry, FIR for offence of murder was got registered.4. Returning back to the spot where the crime was committed, the crime team was summoned. SI Rohtash Kumar PW-11 from the crime team could not lift any chance fingerprints. Const. Rattan Singh PW-6 a photographer was summoned who took 8 photographs Ex. PW-6/1 to Ex. PW-6/8.5. On 17t...

M/S L.G. Electronics (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Noida

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

At the request of learned advocate for the appellants, matter is adjourned and fixed for hearing on 15.02.2010 at 2.30 PM....

Nestle India Ltd. Versus Cce, Chandigarh and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

At the request of learned advocate for the appellants, matters are adjourned and fixed for hearing on 15.02.2010 at 2.30 PM....

Prem Pharm a -ceuticals and Others Versus Cce, Indore and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

It is seen that the copy of affidavit in reply filed by the Department was not served upon the advocates for the assessees. The same is being furnished now. Consequently, at the request of learned advocates for the assessees, three weeks time is granted to file rejoinder, if any, with copy to other side. The same should be filed on or before 2nd March, 2010. If any further rejoinder is to be filed by the Department, the same should be filed on or before 22nd March, 2010 with copy to other side. The matter to be listed for hearing on 06th April, 2010....

Balaji Distilleries Ltd.Vs. Bifr

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Balaji Distilleries Limited has filed Appeal No. 189 of 2009 against paragraph No. 2.7.6(i) and (ii) of the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) in case Nos. 103 of 2004 and 315 of 2004. Vide its impugned directions, the BIFR has declared the allotment of warrants for Rs. 124.02 crores to Vicki Investments and Properties (P) Ltd. (VIPPL), Hiwide Enterprises (P) Ltd (HEPL) and Mighty Agrotech (India) Limited (MATIL) on 20.12.2007 and its subsequent conversion into equity on 15.6.2009 as null and void and by another direction the BIFR has directed the appellant company to submit an alternate draft rehabilitation scheme to the IDBI (operating agency) without involving any change of management. Against this order, the appellant company as well as VIPPL (Appeal No. 193 of 2009), HEPL (Appeal No. 187 of 2009) and MATIL (Appeal No. 196 of 2009) hav...

Groupe of Chimique Tunisien (Gct) Vs. Bifr

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by Groupe of Chimique Tunisien (GCT) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant company) against the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') dated 2.9.2008 whereby the BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme (SS-08) for Paradeep Phosphates Limited, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent company'). The appellant company is an unsecured creditor who is aggrieved by paragraph 18 of the sanctioned scheme which provides for payment of 30% of the principal outstanding dues of non-current unsecured creditors as against 89% paid to current unsecured creditor i.e. OCP, Morocco. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant company was declared sick at the hearing held on 20.7.2005 and State Bank of India.(SBI) was appointed as the operating agency (OA) under section 17(3) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') to exa...

M/S. Tirupati Structurals Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Justice RMS Khandeparkar: Heard learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. This appeal is being heard in terms of order passed today in stay application NoE/S/1965/09. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing and marketing of PVC Pipes Fitting, PVC Pipes and Lubricated HDPE Pipes falling under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. Based on certain information regarding clandestine removal of the product, the premises of the appellants were inspected and certain documents were seized based on which investigation was carried out and show cause notice dated 8.3.2007 came to be issued requiring the appellants to show cause against demand of duty to the tune of Rs.10,60,526/- and Rs.21,210/-. Pursuant to contest after hearing the parties, the Additional Commissioner, Ghaziabad by his order dated 7.7.2008 dropped the proceedings. Being aggrieved, the Department preferred appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), Meerut which came to be allowed by ...

M/S. Swift Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Brahm Dutt Modi, Director Vs. Cce, Ja ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Justice RMS Khandeparkar: Heard at length learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appeals arise from the order dated 13.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. By the impugned order, the duty demand to the tune of Rs.71,85,555/- has been confirmed against the appellants while directing payment of interest thereon and has also imposed penalty of equal amount. Further penalty of Rs.10 lakhs (Rs. ten lakhs) has been imposed on the Director Shri Brahm Dutt Modi. 3. The appellants company is engaged in manufacture of Ordinary Portland Cement falling under sub-heading 25231910 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 from clinker which is either manufactured in its own factory or procured from outside. In the course of the audit of the records maintained by the appellants...