Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 10 of about 331 results (0.011 seconds)M/S Wings Electronics Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut Ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 143/CE/APPL/NOIDA/07 dated 18/27.12.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The dispute relates to denial of credit in respect of 2 bills of entry No.00558 and 010956 involving total credit of Rs.2,33,573/-. The credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the appellants have not produced the said bills of entry for defacement by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that several documents including bills of entry for 1995-96 and 1996-97 were summoned to be produced by DRI officers on 17.12.96. Accordingly, the 3 files containing bills of entry with serial numbers 1 to 72 were produced to the officials of the DRI ON 17.12.96. Subsequently, when the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities were seeking copies of the bills of the entry for defacement, they exchanged corresponde...
Tag this Judgment!Ex. Nk. N.a Mithilesh Kumar Versus Union of India Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Summary Court Martial (SCM) proceedings of 3.1.2007, wherein the respondents illegally sentenced him to be dismissed from service against the well settled principles and provisions of law. The appellant seeks to be reinstated from service with all consequential benefits. 2. The appellant was enrolled in 1988 as a Nursing Assistant in the Army Medical Corps and had served almost 19 years before his dismissal, thereby denying him the fruits of his dedicated and diligent service of almost two decades. The trade of Nursing Assistant is a most sought-after trade and entails good education, nursing and intelligence and a person has to be specially selected for this trade. All along, the appellant has been performing his duties to the best of his abilities and to the satisfaction of his superior officers in all areas, even in difficult border areas. He has done this despite being a Low Medical Category (LMC) P II since 1999 for Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sonu Arora Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th April 1997 and Order on Sentence dated 30th April 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC read with Section thereof, for committing murder of one Zaheer.2. In the night intervening 18th/19th October 1993, Police Control Room informed Police Post Sangam Vihar that two boys had been stabbed at Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, Gali No. 17. On receipt of this information, SI Rai Singh went to the spot, where one dead body with stab wounds was found lying. On enquiry, the name of the deceased was found to be Nizam. He came to know that the other person, injured in the same incident, had been taken to the hospital by PCR Van. When SI Rai Singh reached AIIMS, he came to know that the other injured namely Zaheer had been brought dead to...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Nath Aggarwal Vs Munshi Ram Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. Prem Nath Aggarwal, the owner of shop bearing no.702, Gali Kundewalan, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against Munshi Ram. Case of the plaintiff was that Net Ram who was a tenant with the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs.11.12 paisa had expired one year before the filing of the said suit. He was not survived by any legal heir. Defendant was an unauthorized occupant of the suit property and even presuming that Net Ram had permitted the defendant use of the suit property, this permission/license ended with the life of Net Ram; decree for possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month was claimed.2. Defendant had contested the suit. Ex.PW-1/DX had been proved on record. This was a judgment dated 25.7.1968 p...
Tag this Judgment!Syncom Formulations Vs Sas Pharmaceuticals
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 806 days in filing the present appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and decree was passed on 24.11.2006, however, the decree was drawn up only on 25.5.2007. Counsel further submits that delay in filing the appeal was caused on account of the fact that after passing of the judgment and decree the appellant sought advice from various counsels in Indore and Delhi about the merit and the grounds of the appeal. The appellant thereafter approached the present counsel for preparing appeal in the month of March, 2007.3. It is further contended by counsel for the appellant that the case of the appellant was being handled by the present law firm, which has senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar and ors Vs State and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.190/2004, lodged by the respondent No.2, wife of the petitioner No.1 and daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC with Police Station: Keshav Puram.2. It is stated in the petition that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.06.2001 and there is no issue from out of this wedlock. In the year 2004, FIR No.190/2004 was registered by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners and the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2, who has since expired. After carrying out the investigation, a challan was filed by the police authorities in the court, which is now pending before the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Sarup Singh Vs Shri Mange Ram Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed against order dated 8.7.2010 passed by Senior Civil Judge, New Delhi vide which, application of petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) was dismissed.2. Respondent No.1 had filed suit for declaration, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction, which is pending before the Trial Court.3. In application under Section 151 CPC, petitioner has sought clarification/interpretation of the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Trial Court to avoid further confusion and for issuing directions to the management of MTNL to withdraw circular/letter dated 21.6.2010 and 26.06.2010 and also to restrain the management from issuing further circulars.4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner tha...
Tag this Judgment!Shashvat Advertising Pvt Ltd Vs Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?ORDER.1. The petitioner an advertising agency made an offer to the respondent MCD for putting up "wall wrap" at Shop No.7, CSC, Masjid Moth, New Delhi (South Zone) . Along with the said offer a photograph of the proposed site and wall wrap was also submitted. The respondent MCD vide its letter dated 9th July, 2010 to the petitioner and with the subject as under:- "Sub:- Offer for grant of permission/NOC for display of advertisement through one wall wrap of the size 24'X12' (288 sq.ft.) at shop No.7, CSC, Masjid Moth, New Delhi (South Zone)."inter alia intimated to the petitioner as under:-"In case the rate of fee and terms & conditions are acceptable, you may deposit the security amount, equivalent to three months' licence fee, one month's advance licence fee calculated @ Rs.120/- per sq.ft. of the display are...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Deepak Malhotra Vs State and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for quashing of FIR No.347/2005 lodged by the respondent No.2 under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC with Police Station: Patel Nagar on 25.06.2005.2. It is averred in the petition that certain disputes and differences arose between the petitioner, who was a tenant of respondent No.2, in respect of premises bearing No.2150/1, Main Patel Road, Near Shadi Pur Depot, Opp. PS West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that originally, the property belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.2, one Chaudhary Raghunath, who let out the same to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, Shri Agya Ram Malhotra. In the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner and six othe...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 25th February, 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 302 of IPC and was further sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 thereof. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year.2. On 20th November, 1991, Nand Lal, a gang man in Railways spotted a male dead body lying on the railway track near Gurudwara Damduma in Nizamuddin. He informed his superior Shri Mahender Singh, an Assistant Station Master, Railway Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, who, in turn, informed the Police Station, where this information was re...
Tag this Judgment!