Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 16 of about 197 results (0.020 seconds)Tek Chand Vs. Rattan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner made following prayers:A. set aside impugned order dated 5.12.2008 passed by Ms. Kamini Lau, ADJ, Delhi in RCA No. 27/2007 in appeal titled as 'Tek Chand v. Rattan Lal' now fixed for 15.01.2009 and ordering that at least the compoundable portion of the property bearing No. 17-C, Gaon Mochi Bagh, New Delhi be not demolished; andB. issue an appropriate direction or order declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 MCD asking the petitioner to obtain an NOC from the respondent No. 2 DDA and further the action of respondent No. 2 DDA for refusing the grant of NOC as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution of India; andC. Issue a further direction or order to respondent No. 3 MCD to consider the application of petitioner for regularization without demanding NOC or directing respondent No. 2 DDA to issue an NOC for getting...
Tag this Judgment!Yoginder Kumar Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Ajit Bharihoke, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 05.03.1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of his wife Babli (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') as also against the consequent order on sentence dated 06.03.1997 vide which the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo RI for a further period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 15.03.1992 at 7.15 am, information was received at Police Station Vinay Nagar that some untoward incident had taken place at P-160, Village Pillangi. This information was recorded in the police station as DD No. 9A and the same was entrusted to SI Jeewan Kumar (PW15) for investigation. On receipt of the DD report, SI Jeewan Kumar left for the place of occurrence alongwith Constable Ramesh Chand (PW10). On the way to t...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal Sachdeva and anr. Vs. Hari Chand Grover
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 5th April, 2005 of learned RCT whereby learned RCT ordered for deposit of rent of the premises in question for the disputed period @ Rs. 1,000/- per month including the period of August 2002 to January, 2003 (the tenant was saying that the rent was @ Rs. 200/-per month) but did not allow the petitioner to withdraw this rent and stated that this rent shall remain deposited in the Court.2. I think that the purpose of Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act is that the landlord should not be deprived of the rent/user charges when the tenant was in occupation of the premises during the pendency of proceedings. If this amount remained deposited with the Court, practically the purpose of Section 15(1) of DRC Act stands defeated.3. I, therefore, consider that it would be appropriate that the learned ARC should release the rent in favour of petitioner herein...
Tag this Judgment!Bimla Vs. Gopal and ors.
Court: Delhi
J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 8,21,606/- has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant seeks enhancement of the award amount.2. The accident dated 18th October, 2003 resulted in grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant was sitting on the pillion of motor cycle No. DL-4S-AG-5822 being driven by her husband on Outer Ring Road near Jaipur Golden Hospital red light when the motor cycle was hit by Tata Tempo bearing No. DL-1L-E-2847, due to which the appellant and her husband fell down on the road. The appellant suffered following injuries:(a) Close fracture soft libia, middle 1/3rd (Left),(b) Fracture L-1, with Neurological deficit,(c) Sup. Abrassions back right side lumber region left flank,(d) Contusion Right thigh (S.T. injury),(e) Interlocking nailing tibia left leg done,(f) Profusely bleeding.3. The permanent disability of the appellant has been assessed as 79% by the Medical Board in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Cool Tech Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. 2. The department is on appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed by the Original Authority under Section 76 while upholding the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 3. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Original Authority and the grounds of appeal. 4. Ld. Advocate for the respondent submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. City Motors in Service Tax Appeal No.15 of 2010 has held that two penalties for the same default could not be imposed on the party and upheld the decision of the Tribunal in not imposing penalty under Section 76 when penalty under Section 78 has been imposed. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal by the Department. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 22.03.2010....
Tag this Judgment!C.C. (Preventive), Lucknow Vs. Shri Dinesh Kumar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.84-CUS/ALLD/09 dated 29.5.2009. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers of DRI seized a consignment of 572 kgs. of scrap of copper wires and brass and steel scrap valued at Rs.1,50,300/- booked from Rauxal Border consigned to Delhi. The consignment was intercepted en route at Gorakhpur Railway Station on 9.6.2007 and the same was seized under reasonable belief that it was goods of Nepalese origin brought to India illegally. Shri Dinesh Kumar came forward and claimed the consignment and submitted that the scrap was material was collected by him from different villages in that area and was being consigned to Delhi. The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty of Rs.1000/- on the respondent. 4. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the original authority. 5. Learned SDR reit...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indcoat Shoe Components Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: After hearing both sides for a while on the stay petition, considering the nature of dispute involved, the stay petition is disposed off and the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The order of the original authority dated 18.3.2009, undisputedly was received by the appellant on 21.3.2009 and they filed appeal only on 11.9.2009 not only beyond the stipulated period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order but also beyond the condonable power of delay of the Commissioner (Appeals).The reason attributed is that the authorised signatory met with a major accident and he was being hospitalised. On this ground, the condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was sought for. The reason given for the delay in filing of appeal that the authorised signatory was hospitalised, on the face of it, is not acceptable. Nothing prevented from the Board of Directors to authorise another person as authorised signatory. At any rate, it i...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Indore Vs. Shri Namdeo Panjwani (Md of M/S Panjwani Packaging ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Learned Jt. CDR points out that this appeal is in effect a duplication of Appeal No.E/2890/2007. When the appeal has been filed by the Department in two copies two separate numbers E/2890 and 2891/07 have inadvertently been allotted by the registry. There is only one appeal and therefore, E/2891/07 may be treated as infractuous and closed. 2. In view of the above, Appeal No.2891/07 is closed and is accordingly disposed of as the matter already being dealt with in Appeal No.E/2890/07....
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Raipur Vs. M/S Nibi Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No.14 and 15/RPR-II/2008 dated 28.2.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises of respondent on 16.11.2006, the excess stock of 76.365 MTs. of M.S. Ingots manufactured in that factory. Out of the 76.365 MTs., a quantity of 20.877 MTs. of M.S. ingots were found removed from the furnace division to the rolling mill section. It was noticed also that raw material accounts were written with ink upto October, 2006 and thereafter with pencil. The excess goods valued Rs.13,54,104/- were seized. On the basis of show cause notice issued, the original authority confiscated the excess found goods under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 but allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.2.21 lakhs. He also imposed penalty of Rs.2000/- on the respondent firm under Rule 25 and a penalty of Rs.2000/- on Shri N.K.Yadav, Director of the respondent firm und...
Tag this Judgment!Major B.C. Yadav Versus the Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The applicant had filed a writ petition (civil) number 2641 in the Honble Delhi High Court. The same was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal on 28.10.2009. 2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy in 1974 and on the basis of his service profile he was commissioned in the Corps of Signals in 1983. The applicant contends that he earned excellent confidential reports (CRs) during his service tenure, barring one report initiated by Lt Col P.K Goel. He further submits that on 17.12.2000, Army Headquarter arbitrarily expunged the outstanding figurative assessment of nine points in two of the CRs for the periods 1.6.1998 to 30.11.1998 and 1.12.1998 to 31.5.1999 (Annexure A and B) on grounds of subjectivity without referring to his reporting officers. On 8.9.2000 the applicant was intimated that he had not been approved for promotion to the rank of lieutenant colonel (Annexure C). The applicant submitted a statutory complaint (Annexure D) on 18.11.2000 against his suppressi...
Tag this Judgment!