Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 15 of about 331 results (0.019 seconds)Satinder Lohia and ors Vs State 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 No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners on the basis of an FIR No.306/2009 lodged by him under Sections 323/452/506/34 IPC registered with PS Mehrauli.2. It is stated in the petition that the dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3 (petitioners in Crl.M.C.2204/2010) arose out of non-payment of rent by the respondent No.2 & 3, who are the tenants of one Smt. Gyanwati, landlady in respect of the premises bearing No.39-A, Silver Oak Farm, Ghitorni, New Delhi. The petitioners herein are the sons of the landlady. Both the parties state that when the mother of the petitioners wanted to seek recovery of rent from the respondents No.2 & ...
Tag this Judgment!Tejpal 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 petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Case FIR No.333/2008 lodged by Sh.Rajpal under Sections 420/468/467/471/34 IPC read with Section 120B IPC registered with PS Mehrauli, New Fatehpur Beri.2. A Status Report is handed over by the learned APP and taken on record. As per the Status Report, the case was registered on the complaint of one Rajpal and his brothers, wherein they narrated that their ancestors, Sh.Sohan Kale and Kalla had 1/3rd share and Sh.Nahtan and Sh.Nirmal were having 2/3rd share in a parcel of land situated in village Aya Nagar. The aforesaid ancestors expired in the years 1982-83 where after, the complainants came to know that the land was mutated in the name of one Mahipal in the year 2002. However, they claimed that they being the l...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Essar Steel Limited Vs Gail (i) Ltd and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? ORDERCM No.9308-09/2010 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Caveat No.138/2010 Caveat stands discharged.1. This writ petition is directed against the decision of the respondents of not allowing the petitioner to participate in the electronic reverse auction process to be conducted on 17.07.2010 pursuant to the tender enquiry dated 26.03.2010 bearing RFT No. RKS/A027-010-QB-MR- 9010/1001.2. Mr Mukul Rohtagi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that although no reason for their not being permitted to participate in the electronic bidding process has been assigned or given to the petitioner, they have come to learn that the reason is that the petitioner had not filed the requisite form with the Registrar of Companies along with the certified copy pertaining to the amalgamation of Hazira Pip...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Yadav and ors. Vs State 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 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.656/2006 under Sections 308/341/34 IPC registered with PS Anand Vihar, Delhi lodged by the complainant, respondent No.2.2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were labourers who used to work in a private limited company at Patparganj where the respondent No.2 was employed to the post of Supervisor. On 16.12.2006, there was a heated exchange of words between them and the respondent No.2 as a result of which, the parties in a fit of anger, exchanged blows and also inflicted some injuries on each other. This resulted in filing of the aforesaid FIR. It is now stated that though a charge sheet was filed in the present case which is pending before the learned ASJ, Karkardoom...
Tag this Judgment!V.P.Singh Vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of Local papers 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. (ORAL)1. Petitioner retired as Principal under the respondent on 28.02.2007. Some of his retiral benefits such as commutation of pension and gratuity were not released to him at the time of his retirement on the ground that a complaint had been filed by the son of Late Sh.V.K. Verma who committed suicide and was a UDC in the school where petitioner was the Principal.2. On account of the death of Sh.V.K. Verma being an unnatural death a FIR was registered but it may be noted that nobody was named as an accused therein, much less the petitioner.3. As on the date of his retirement, the petitioner was neither facing any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding were pending against him. Investigation was still pending at the level of the local police. The challan was presented in Court much after the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Bal and anr Vs State and anr
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 No reported in the Digest?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioners on the basis of an FIR No.315/2009 lodged by him under Sections 308/323/342/34 IPC with PS Mehrauli.2. It is stated in the petition that the dispute which arose between the parties, was civil in nature and related to non-payment of rent by the petitioners, who were at the relevant time, the tenants of one Smt. Gyanwati, landlady in respect of the premises bearing No.39-A, Silver Oak Farm, Ghitorni, New Delhi. Both the parties state that when the respondent No.2 accompanied the sons of the landlady to seek recovery of rent from the petitioners, heated words were exchanged between the parties and a trivial is...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Singh and ors Vs Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.(Oral)CM No.9271/2010 Allowed subject to just exceptions.1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that their forefathers were in exclusive, constructive and actual physical possession of part of Khasra No.1865 measuring 102 Bighas and 9 Biswas (Abadi) forming part of the Revenue Estate of Village Bhaati Kalan. Out of the total land, the petitioners claim rights in respect of 72 Bighas and 9 Biswas arising much prior to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (the said Act for short) coming into force. The petitioners allege that R-1 and R-2 came to demolish a part of the structure on the land in question on 28.06.2010 but by physical resistance the petitioners and the other villagers were able to prevent R-1 and R-2 from taking any action. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shanti Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mee ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 13/Comm/M II/2008 dated 9.6.2008. The matter is before the Tribunal for the second time having been remanded to the Commissioner vide Final Order No. A/587/02 dated 18.4.02. 2. Heard both sides at length. 3. The appellants are the manufacturer of hot rerolled products of iron and steel such as MS section and T Iron Angle. They are required to pay the Central Excise duty at compounded rates in terms of section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner vide order dated 27.3.98 determined the annual capacity of production as 2672.75 MT/Annuam. On 7.10.98, the appellant intimated the Commissioner about the shut down for the purpose of modification of various parameters; they informed the Commissioner about the completion of modification work vide their letter dated 27.11.98 which was received in the Commissioner’s office on 31.11.98. It appears from the record that there was verification on 4.12.98 ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Indus Express Courier Vs. C.C.(import and General), New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides on the application for restoration of appeal dismissed vide Final Order No.1529/2009-SM(Br.) dated 10th December 2009 for not complying with the Stay Order dated 26.10.2009 directing the applicant to deposit the penalty of Rs.50,000/- and report compliance on 10th December 2009. 2. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the stay order as well as the order dismissing the appeal was passed ex-parte. Due to some communication gap, the Advocate appointed could not appear before the Tribunal. It was claimed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was since paid on 29.1.2010. 3. Learned DR does not dispute the factual position as above. 4. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2009 dismissing the appeal is recalled and the appeal and the stay petition are restored to their original numbers. 5. With the consent of both sides, the stay petition and the appeal are taken up for final disposal. Since the entire amount of penalty of Rs.50,00...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Pasupati Spinning a ...
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. 618/CE/CHD/2003 dated 17.7.2003. The appeal was rejected vide Final Order No. A/1081/04 dated 12.7.2004. On appeal by the department, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide their order dated 4.8.2009 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration vide order reported as 2010 (250) ELT 332. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent imported yarn of synthetic staple embroidery thread yarn and availed exemption under Notification No. 34/97-Cus and no CVD was paid in cash and they produced the DEPB scrip for clearing the goods. The respondents took credit of amount of CVD debited by way of DEPB scrip as credit. The original authority by his order dated 31.12.01 disallowed the credit of Rs. 84,074/- and ordered recovery of the same along with interest and imposed equal amount of Rs. 84,074/- as penalty under section 11AC of the Act. On ap...
Tag this Judgment!