Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 11 of about 197 results (0.019 seconds)istkhar Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of all the four appeals referred above, which are directed against a common Judgment dated 18th November, 2010 and Order on Sentence dated 25th November, 2010, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 395 and Section 120B IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- or to undergo FIR for six months in default under Section 395 of IPC and were further sentenced to undergo FIR for 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each or to undergo imprisonment for 4 months each in default under Section 120B IPC.2. On 2nd February, 2006, on receipt of information about an incident of robbery, the Investigation Officer of this case went to Bagh Kare Khan, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi where the complainant Smt. Madhu Gupta met him. The complainant alleged that she was in the business of selling foam-cloth and that on 30th January, 2002, she had sold cloth worth Rs. 9,30,000/- and had kept the cash...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pushpa Devi
Court: Delhi
Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in OA No. 2074/2008 on 17.08.2009, whereby directions have been given to the petitioners to place the respondent in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 from the date of inception of her service as a Junior Clerk with arrears and re-consider her out of turn promotion to a pay scale higher than the scale now being granted to her, with arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the filing of this case are that the respondent, a graduate of Delhi University as well as an athlete of International level who was recruited in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Head Constable in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 and on the basis of the sports achievements, was also promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in th...
Tag this Judgment!Lalit JaIn and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini and the Complaint Case Number 06/2001 titled Shri Piara Singh v. Nokia Hot Press and Ors., qua the petitioners.2. Respondent No. 2 has been served but has not put in appearance.3. Short question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner being partners of the firm are vicariously liable for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short hereinafter referred to as N.I. Act) with regard to cheques, issued by one of the partner in his individual capacity from his personal account.4. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 against M/s Nokia Hot Press and its partners. Petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4. It was alleged that accused No. 2 Pradeep Jain had taken loan of Rs. 2,65,000/- from respondent No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Chattar Singh and ors. Vs. Mcd
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioners had applied for sanction of building plan for construction on plot No. 74, Taimoor Nagar, New Delhi on 20th August, 2008. The respondent by the letter dated 26th August, 2008 called upon the petitioner to furnish documents and clarify doubts. On 30th September, 2008, the petitioners replied to the queries raised and furnished the documents to the respondent, MCD. The respondent, MCD again on 10th November, 2008 asked the petitioner to clarify doubts and submit documents, which were replied and furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners by their letter dated 21st November, 2008 asked the respondent, MCD to examine their application for sanction of building plan.2. The respondent, MCD after a gap of nearly four months again wrote a letter dated 9th March, 2009, asking the petitioners to comply with the letters dated 20th August, 2008 and 10th November, 2008. The petitioners responded and informed the respondent, MCD by their letter dated 9th Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Mavaskar Vs. Col. Inder SaIn Bhatia and anr.
Court: Delhi
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 15th July, 2003. The challenge to the Award is not on merits but on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes because Arbitrator was not an Arbitrator appointed in accordance with law.2. The parties to the present petition entered into a Partnership Deed on 22nd February, 2003 for carrying on the business of event management under the name and style of M/s. INS Management. The Partnership Deed contained an Arbitration Clause which reads as under:10. That in case of any dispute among the parties in connection with the partnership the same shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act.3. From the aforesaid Arbitration Clause it is clear that there is no named Arbitrator. The record also shows that an Arbitrator was not appointed by a Court under Section 11 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Durga Plast (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. C.C.E., Delhi Iii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals arise out of a common order in appeal No. 380-381/KKG/RTK/2007 dated 29 August 2007. 2. Shri Chinmay Agarwal, learned Advocate prays for adjournment of the hearing on the ground that his senior is out of station on urgent assignment. I find that when the matter was listed on 28.4.2010, it was specifically adjourned for 23.6.2010 at the request of the learned Advocate. On an earlier occasion on 12.1.2010 also, the matter was adjourned at the request on behalf of the Advocate. Under these circumstances, I do not find any justification for acceding to the request for adjournment. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the factory of the appellant was visited on 3.12.2005 and on verification of the records and on physical verification of the finished goods conducted in the presence of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Director and two independent witnesses it was found that there was shortage of 1,227 kgs. of PVC Hose Pipes and 16 MT of ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Footwear (Klick) India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce, Delhi-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
The learned advocate for the appellants states that the matter pertains to the Single Member Bench. The registry to verify the same and do the needful....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Triveni Engg. and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
The Registrar is expected to know that Division Bench consists of two Members and, therefore, whenever any explanation is sought for, he is required to place two copies before the Division Bench; he, however, has failed to do so in this matter. Registrar is, therefore, directed to place a copy of the explanation on the second file of the Bench forthwith. 2. The explanation refers to certain alleged lapses on the part of the Court Master and then recording about service of notice to the parties. One fails to understand as to how the matter relating to recording about service of notice can be expected from a Court Master when that is the job essentially of a Clerk working in the registry s office who actually issues the notice and receives the intimation about the service thereof. The Court Master s job essentially relates to the proceedings in the Court. This being an elementary thing, one fails to understand as to how the job relating to recording about service of notice was entrusted ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Jaipur-ii Vs. M/S Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Heard both sides. 2. This appeal arises from the order dated 14th September, 2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The said appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by the respondents against the order dated 04.09.2002 whereby the respondents were directed to deposit the amount which they had collected as freight/insurance charges in excess to actual expenses incurred on account of transportation/insurance from time to time without any basis. 3. The challenge to the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is essentially on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the fact regarding the demand of duty amount which was ordered to be deposited and was the subject matter of the proceedings relating to finalization of the provisional assessment and the finding therein in respect of collection of such excess amount was not challenged by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has neither taken note there...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Galaxy Indo Fab Ltd. and Others Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Noted the apology tendered by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Raebareli, under letter dated 16.03.2010 and the same is accepted. In view thereof, no further order is required except observing that, the respondent shall not be entitled to take any coercive measures against the appellants in contravention of the stay already granted in the matter and which shall remain in force till the disposal of the appeals....
Tag this Judgment!