Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Industrial Cables Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Revenue has come in Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.2.2005 granting relief to the Respondent taking shelter of Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 1.3.97. Shri Verma, ld. DR for Revenue submits that notification envisages grant of an exemption to accessories and spare parts of goods used in scientific and technical instrument, apparatus, equipment (including computers) and consumables. According to Shri Verma when the appellant made supply of electric wires and cables which shall not be accessories and spares part of the scientific and technical instrument, apparatus, equipments (including computers), the Respondent was not entitled to any relief. Therefore his prayer is that certificate issued by the authority was not conclusive evidence for the purpose of Central Excise Act, 1944. Authorities under this Act are independent to examine the issue before them on the touchstone of law. 2. Shri Kaushik, learned Counsel on behalf of Re...

Naveen Kaushik Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? YES2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3 Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES1. Being grieved by the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(Crl.) No.177/2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has expressed the view that when framing of charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is interlocutory, the summoning order cannot be considered as a final order to enable the accused to approach the Court for quashment of the same.2. Though maintenance of Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed in a criminal writ has been raised yet we have thought it apposite to deal with the controversy without entering into the issue of maintainability.3. At the very outset, we may produce the order passed by the learned Single Judge:"This petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR, quashing of summoning order and quashing of chargesheet. The ac...

M/S R.S. Trade Link and Others Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per. Rakesh Kumar :- This is a common order in respect of 16 appeals, the details of which are as under :- S. No. Appeal No. Appellant Order against which appeal filed 1. C/354/05 Rahuljee and Co. Ltd. An importer of non-ferrous scrap against forged advance licence Order-in-Original No. 12/05 dated 26/2/05 2. C/355/05 Anil Goel, Executive Director of M/s Rahuljee and Co. Ltd. - do - 3. C/555/05 Gautam Chatterjee - do - 4. C/357/05 Ashok Metal Industries An importer of non-ferrous scrap against forged advance licence Order-in-Original No. 13/05 dated 17/3/05 5. C/563/05 Gautam Chatterjee - do - 6. C/353/05 Anil Goel, Executive Director of M/s B.M. Non-Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Order-in-Original No. 14/05 dated 17/3/05 7. C/560/05 Gautam Chatterjee - do - 8. C/350/05 M/s R.S. Trade Link An importer of non-ferrous scrap against forged advance licence Order-in-Original No. 15/05 dated 17/3/05 9. C/351/05 Sanjeev Khurania, person incharge of M/s R.S. Trade Link - do - 10. C/561/05 Gautam C...

Sunila Wadhawan and ors. Vs. Silver Smith India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ dismissing an application filed by the petitioners under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing a decree of possession of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner had let out a premises bearing number M-15, Green Park, New Delhi to the respondent by way of a lease deed dated 25th January, 1999 for a period of two years with effect from 1st February 1999. The monthly rent reserved was Rs. 30,000/-.3. The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises, permanent injunction and recovery of mesne profits alleging therein, apart from other things, that the lease expired on 31st January, 2001 by efflux of time but the premises in question was not vacated. The defendant (respondent herein) was als...

Rishipal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Gita Mittal, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8th May, 2007 being a disagreement memorandum issued by the Commandant, 2nd Res. Battalion, Central Industrial Security Force, Mahipalpur, New Delhi as the disciplinary authority; the final order dated 23rd May, 2007 passed by the Commandant under Rule 32 read with schedule 1 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as `CISF Rules, 2001' for brevity) ordering that the pay of the petitioner be reduced by one stage from Rs. 3880/- to Rs. 3795/- in the time scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900/- for a period of one year with immediate effect. It was further ordered that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponement of his future increments of pay. The petitioner has also laid a challenge to the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector Ge...

Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Allied Motors (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dated 28.2.2004 whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) of dismissing eviction petition filed by the petitioner.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent on the ground of subletting under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), wherein it was alleged that servant quarter No. 45, attached to the shop/showroom at Atma Ram Mansion, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, under the tenancy of the respondent, was sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession to one Kanshi Ram, in violation of provisions of DRC Act, i.e. without the permission and consent in writing of the petitioner. This contention was made b...

Bajaj Allianz Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aasma and ors.

Court: Delhi

J.R. Midha, J.CM No. 4621/2010 (delay)1. There is delay of ten days in filing the appeal.2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.3. The application stands disposed of.CM No. 4620/20104. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.5. The application stands disposed of.CM No. 4619/20106. Allowed, subject to order under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act being filed within two weeks.7. The application stands disposed of.MAC. APP. No. 149/2010 & CM No. 4618/20108. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby compensation of Rs. 7,76,000/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2.9. The accident dated 23rd April, 2008 resulted in the death of Sharafat Ali. The deceased was survived by his widow and one minor daughter who filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal.10. The deceased was a rickshaw puller. According to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4, the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. In the abse...

Ansul Industries Vs. Shri Vineet Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 168(2010)DLT163

Rajiv Shakdher, J.IA No. 9182/2009 (under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC)1. This is an application filed by the defendants for vacation of interim order dated 11.06.2008 as confirmed by an order dated 16.12.2008. In order to dispose of the application, it would perhaps be necessary to notice the following facts:2. The plaintiff claims that it has been in the business of manufacturing and marketing chewing tobacco and other cognate allied goods since 1982 under the trade name 'Udta Panchhi' (label). The genesis of the business is traced to a proprietorship concern started by Sh Krishan Bansal, father of Sh Anand Bansal who is the partner in the plaintiff firm. Sh Krishan Bansal had started the said business under the name of Bansal Tobacco Store. In 1994, Sh Anand Bansal changed the name to the present name i.e., M/s Ansul Industries on the death of the father in 1992 without any change in the activities, nature of business, assets and liabilities.3. It appears that in 2001 a suit was institute...

Babu Lal @ Pappu Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.5.2008 the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302/364 IPC. For the offence of murder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. For the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine in sum of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. We understand this to mean that after undergoing the sentence for 10 years it would be treated that the appellant has undergone the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC.2. The broad contours of the case set up by the prosecution are that the deceased Kanhiya Lal aged 11 years along with his father Diwari Lal PW-3 and sister Rakhi PW-8 resided...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sangal

Court: Delhi

Mool Chand Garg, J.CM No. 4245/2010 (Exemption)1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of.WP(C) No. 2125/20103. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in TA No. 297/2009, whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to quash the order of the petitioner in having accepted the resignation of the respondent, which according to the respondent was withdrawn before its acceptance.4. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder:19. Taking into account the total facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the Applicant has not tendered a clean and unconditional resignation. It is also admitted that there were grievances of the Applicant which remained to be redressed by the MCD. Even the acceptance of resignation is also a conditional acceptance which is not legally tenable. We are of...