Delhi Court June 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)Sh. Manish JaIn Vs Smt. Sangeeta Jain
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest Yes 1. Parties to the petition were married on 11th May, 2005 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Since parties quarrelled with each other, they could not live together and started living separately. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for restitution of the conjugal rights. Respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner during pendency of the said petition.2. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 1 st May, 2010 allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application i.e. 17th December, 2009 besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has filed this...
Tag this Judgment!Tuncay Alankus and anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. This revision petition has been filed by Tuncay Alankus, accused No.4 in case CBI v. C. K. Ramakrishnan & Others, challenging the order of the Special Judge dated 11 th October 2004, whereby the Learned Judge has restricted number of witnesses to be examined by the petitioner in his defence. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 17 th November 2004, whereby the Learned Judge, while allowing witnesses to be examined by video conferencing, directed the petitioner to bear the cost thereof. Impugned is also an order dated 6 th December 2004, whereby the Court had fixed the time schedule for examination of the witnesses, failing which the defence evidence was to stand closed. Another order dated 8th February, 2005 has also been impugned by the petitioner.2. It is noted that before filing the revision...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, Director, M/S. Agarwal Zarda Factory Pvt. ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N.PANDA The appellant has filed appeal against the first appellate order reducing penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as against penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed at the original stage. Along with appeal the appellant has also moved an application for stay. But learned counsel Shri Alok Arora submits that the amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs has already been deposited on 26th February, 2010. 2. In view of the deposit of amount stay application has become infructuous. That is ordered accordingly. 3. The appeal involves a short point of quantum of penalty. Accordingly that has been taken up for hearing. 4. Record reveals that learned Commissioner has examined the penalty issue in para 7.10.2 of the appellate order. While dealing with the issue he had occasion to examine the reason why penalty was liable. He found that parallel invoice was one of the reasons for the demand against the appellant. He leniently considered the case of the employees. But so far as the present appellant who is the Director ...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Batala Coop. Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N.PANDA None present for the respondent but there is an application for decision on merit. 2. Revenue challenged the first appellate order wherein a small demand of Rs. 34,215/- is involved. In the absence of the respondent the record was examined thoroughly and the learned D.Rs submission that Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires proper accountability of the capital goods has been considered. 3. Learned Commissioner has examined the issue thoroughly bringing out clearly in the order that the assessee provided all details which enabled him to come to the conclusion that scrap sold was not capital goods. He also examined the record and found that there was nothing about description of capital goods. It is also his finding that the Revenue failed to discharge its burden to prove that scrap was generated from the capital goods on which Cenvat credit was taken. All these grounds enabled him to set aside the adjudication order. Today also, there is no material to show that ap...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Bhopal Vs. M/S. LupIn Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N.PANDA E/Misc./08/2010-SM Revenue has filed application for condonation of 3 days delay in filing the appeal. It is explained by the appellant that delay is not attributed to any mala fide. Having no objection from other side, delay is condoned and application is disposed off. Appeal No. E/24 of 2010-06-07 2. The point for consideration in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether certain inputs claimed by the respondent shall be admissible for Cenvat credit. Perusal of the appellate order does not show that each and every service claimed by the appellant as input service has met the test of law in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III, reported in 2009 (240) ELT 641 (S.C.). In view of the above, the appellate order is non-speaking and cryptic. For such reasons, the matter is liable to be remanded back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction to test the matter in the light of the law laid down by the...
Tag this Judgment!Sergeant B. K. Mehta of 2305 Versus Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Both the petitions have been received from Delhi High Court and are treated to be an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. Since identical questions of facts and laws are involved in both the cases and so they are taken together for disposal. The accused-appellant who was at the relevant time attached to 230 S.U. Air Force Amritsar for driving the vehicle BA No.92 AF 14615 ALWYN NISSAN, on 02.12.1994 at about 1745 hours by his rash and negligent driving caused the death of Sh. Amarnath, Son of Sh. Heera Lal aged about 60 years, R/o. Village P.O. Dhanowali Tehsil and District Jallandhar amounting to culpable homicide punishable under Section 71 Air Force Act, 1950 R/w. Section 304A IPC, 1860 and further he had also committed civil offence by causing disappearance of the evidence of the deceased and for that he was also charged under Section 71 R/w. Section 201 IPC. Further other charges were levied pertaining to causing damage to the vehicle, not depositing the de...
Tag this Judgment!Sub Ved Prakash Jc-642498k Versus Union of India Through the Secretary ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition was put up for setting aside the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry on the basis of which the authorities seek to proceed with disciplinary action against him. Arguments were heard on behalf of both parties and order dated 09.03.2010 was announced by this Bench. However, in review petition moved by Respondent No.5, it was contended that he had not been given any opportunity to file his objections and to put forth before the Tribunal the facts of the case as perceived/appreciated by him. It was also contended that certain material aspects had been deliberately concealed by the petitioner so as to mislead the Tribunal. It is apparent that he was not served with notice and the initial hearing based on which the order of 09.03.2010 was given, was heard only on behalf of counsels for the petitioner and Union of India and Respondent no.5 against whom the allegations were made and who was supposedly the most aggrieved by the order, was not heard. Accordingly the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Ex Rifleman Ram Prakash Singh No.2886112 P Versus Union of India and O ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Challenge is directed against the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings dated 02.07.1997, whereby the appellant was found guilty of the charges under Sections 48, 56(b) and 63 of the Army Act (the Act, for brevity) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to be dismissed from service. A direction is also sought to reinstate the appellant in service with effect from the date of his dismissal with all benefits. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army as Infantry soldier on 16.09.1988. On 02.07.1997, the appellant was charge sheeted for having found intoxicated on his duty, made false allegations against his superiors and acted prejudicial to the good order and military discipline. The charges against the appellant read as follows: FIRST CHARGE ARMY ACT SECTION 48 INTOXICATION in that he, at field on 29 Dec 96 when on night sentry duty at No.01 bunker from 1900 hrs to 2100 hrs. was found intoxicated on his post. SECOND CHARGE ARMY ACT SECTION 56(B) MA...
Tag this Judgment!Signalman Ram Kumar Mourya Versus the Chief of the Army Staff and Anot ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This petition, to be treated as an appeal under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, has been preferred by the petitioner against the illegally sentence of 15.04.1995 whereby he was dismissed from the Army. The petitioner contends that he served with distinction in the Indian Army, as a signalman, from July 1984 to 15.04.1995. His services were terminated by a hastily convened Summary Court Martial headed by respondent No.2 who was at that point of time the officiating Commanding Officer of 1 Corps Operating Signal Regiment. 2. The petitioner pleaded that he was put in medical category BEE (permanent) with effect from 23.12.1993. He was diagnosed as a Psychiatric patient suffering from Adjustment Reaction 309. From 23.12.1993, after having been placed in this permanent low medical category status, he was only required to work under supervision and was to report thereafter for a fresh review. Therefore, to subject him to the Summary Court Martial under his medical circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Varsha Kapoor Vs Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner herein is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has instituted proceedings in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court South), New Delhi under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act). In this application, the respondent No.4 has impleaded her husband as respondent No.1 and one Rakesh Dhawan as respondent No.3. Her mother-in-law has been arrayed as the respondent No.2 (the petitioner herein). Allegations of domestic violence perpetrated by her husband and mother-in- law are levelled on the basis of which the respondent No.4 has sought protection order under Section 18, Residence Order under Section 19 and Monetary Relief under Section 20 as well as Compensation Order under Section 22 of the DV...
Tag this Judgment!