Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 17 of about 331 results (0.013 seconds)Sujata Aggarwal Vs Ravi Shankar Aggarwal
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?ORDER. (Oral)1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of orders dated 23.09.2008 and 24.02.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for maintenance.2. Vide order dated 23.09.2008, the application filed by the petitioner in September, 2008 praying inter alia for summoning of witnesses was dismissed, while granting liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence by way of affidavit. Pertinently, till date the petitioner has not taken any step to assail the aforesaid order before a superior court. Instead, trial in the matter is stated to have been completed some months ago and as per the counsel for the respondent, it is listed for orders today.3. By the second order dated 24.02.2010, the request o...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rehman Vs State
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 in the Digest? NoORDER. ( Oral )1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 13.5.2009 passed by the learned ADJ in Civil Suit No.227/2008 entitled 'Rajesh Duggal vs. UOI & Ors.' (Annexure P-3).2. In the aforesaid order, the learned ADJ observed that the petitioner(defendant No.5 in the Court below) tried to obstruct the proceedings of the court, raised his voice, used intemperate language in court and that the court thus took cognizance against him under Section 345 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, an opportunity to show cause was granted to the petitioner as to why he not be punished under the aforesaid provision and the matter was adjourned for half an hour, to enable him to submit his reply.3. The case was again taken up at 12.50 PM and it was observed that the petitioner/defen...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Vs State
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner-Amit is identical to the case of Satpal, Dharambir, Sandeep and Pradeep, who have been discharged vide order dated 12th May, 2010.2. FIR No. 676/2006 under Section 341/308/506/34 IPC was recorded on 5th June, 2006 on the statement of one Mr. Jai Prakash. In this FIR Mr. Jai Prakash had stated that at about 8.30 p.m. on 3rd June, 2006 he was going towards Lado Sarai bus stop with his sister-in-law and children to see them off. Mr. Vineet Malik was walking ahead, when two boys Deena and Titu obstructed the way of Mr. Vineet Malik. Both of them started beating and giving blows to Mr. Vineet Malik. In the meanwhile, two other boys came at the spot with wickets in their hands and started beating Mr. Vineet Malik. Mr. Jai Prakash had 3. Mr. Vineet Malik was admitted in a hospital and was unconscious. Subsequently, Mr. Vineet Malik was discharged and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Miss) Snehlata Gupte Vs Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. The short but interesting question of law common to all these petitions: When can a patent be said to be granted under the Patents Act, 1970 (Act)? The question arises in the context of the dismissal of pre- grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents (Controller) on the ground that they were time-barred under Section 21 of the Act.2. The factual background in each set of petitions is necessary to be set out in order to appreciate how the question arises for determination in each of them.3. J. Mitra & Company Respondent No.5 in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 filed two patent Application Nos. 590/Del/2000 and 593/Del/2000 in the Office of the Controller on 14th June 2000. The patent specifications involved in the two applications were published in the official gazette on 20th November 2004 in terms of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raipur (Cg) Vs. M/S. Praya ...
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. 45/RPR-I/2008 dated 30.4.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondents is a manufacturer of MS ingots, runners and risers. The dispute relates to Cenvat credit taken by them on various items like MS angles, MS channels, MS plates, MS joists, welding electrodes etc. A show cause notice was issued on 26.7.07 proposing denial of credit on the impugned items and the proposing penalty. The respondents failed to file any reply. None appeared before the original authority even though the original authority gave personal hearing on different dates namely, 15.10.07, 30.10.07, 14.11.07 and 11.12.07. The original authority has thus passed the impugned order ex-parte. Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the party, has set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned DR submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is erroneous and that the respondents are not eligible for the credit in the li...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S Modern 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. 620/CE/CHD/06 dated 13.7.2006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The original authority disallowed the credit taken on CTD Bars, Angles and Channels as capital goods which were used for fabrication of structures to support the functioning of EOT Crane. He denied the credit amounting to Rs.79,579/- and ordered recovery of same along with interest and imposed equal as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal following his earlier order dated 11.1.1.2004 relating to the same respondents. 4. Learned SDR submits that the respondents are not eligible for the credit in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440. He also submits that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.11.04 which has been relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) stands set aside by the Tribunal vide Final Order No....
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Rohtak Vs. M/S Annpurna Overseas 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. 377-78/AKG/RTK/2004 dated 15.10.04. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 On 17.8.2001, when the officers visited the premises of the respondent, they found shortage of finished goods and the duty involved amounting to Rs.9,879/- was debited by the respondents. When the officers visited the factory again on 23.11.2001, they found that 12 numbers of Cut Chemile Machines on which credit was taken were cleared on paying lower duty by taking higher depreciation and on this being pointed out , a sum of Rs.15,826/- was debited; 3.2 The respondents were found to have cleared dutiable Cotton yarn falling under Chapter 52 valued at Rs.2,12,54,641/- during the financial year 2000-01 and Chenile yarn falling under Chapter 56 valued at Rs.1,52,58,832/- during 2000-01. The value of clearances of these taken together exceeded Rs.3 crores and therefore, they were found to be not entitled to concessional rate of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Gen. Pradeep Bhargava Versus Union of India Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Lt. Gen. Pradeep Bhargava, the applicant, seeks to quash the order dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Government of India in the statutory complaint filed by Respondent No.4 granting him redressal in the ACR of 2005 earned by him in the rank of Brigadier. Simultaneously, he also seeks to quash further proceedings initiated by the Government of India to hold a Special Review Promotion Board of Special Selection Board 2007 to consider Respondent No.4s case afresh. A prayer has also been made that respondents 1 to 3 be directed to hold a Special Board for consideration of the applicant for the post of DGAFMS which fell vacant on 1.7.2010, since the applicant is the senior most Lieutenant General in the cadre and most eligible for the post. 2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the applicant joined the Army Medical Corps on 7.4.1971 and has been serving with utmost devotion. For his entire service till date, the applicant has been senior to Respondent No.4. On 19.11.2007, a Sp...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Mudgal Vs Govt of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. This common order shall dispose of the aforesaid two writ petitions which arise out of order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in OA Nos. 654/2007 and 593/2008.2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid Original Applications praying for permitting the petitioners to also avail the benefit of the Pension Scheme which was in existence before their joining the services of Government of NCT of Delhi (for short "GNCTD") though that Scheme was made applicable to those employees of Delhi Energy Development Agency (DEDA) who were re- deployed before 1.1.2004.3. The petitioners were however granted benefit of New Pension Scheme which was introduced by the GNCTD and which was in existence at the time when the petitioners herein joined the services of the GNCTD in January, 2005 i.e. after 1.1.2004.4. It was the submission made before the Tribunal that since it was a case of transf...
Tag this Judgment!Desh Raj Gupta Vs State 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 genuineness and validity of purported Will dated 28.02.1985 got registered on 29.05.1985 of Lala Hansraj Gupta, Ex. Mayor of Delhi is the subject matter of the present appeal. After the death of Lala Hansraj Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the testator) on 03.07.1985, the appellant (one of his sons) filed the probate case No.62/1985 in October, 1985, propounding that Will. Some other legal heirs had challenged the veracity thereof. The learned Single Judge has returned his findings holding that the purported Will, in his opinion, is not a genuine Will which has resulted in the dismissal of the probate petition. Assailing that judgment, present appeal is preferred by the appellant.2. The testator had a family consisting of wife, four married sons and two married daughters. Names of his children and fe...
Tag this Judgment!