Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 7 of about 331 results (0.023 seconds)D.D. Bhalla Vs Airports Authority of India 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 in Digest? No1. The Petitioner was awarded a contract by the Respondent No. 1 Airports Authority of India (AAI) for providing CNS facilities in the new runway 29/11 at the IGI Airport, New Delhi on 3 rd November 2008 for an amount of Rs. 41,79,126/-. By the impugned order dated 19th March 2009, the AAI cancelled the said contract and the Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order. Also challenged in this writ petition is a show cause notice dated 6 th April 2009 issued by the AAI to the Petitioner asking him to show cause why he should not be debarred from participating in the AAI Tenders and the subsequent order dated 6th May 2009 passed by the AAI debarring him from participating in AAI tenders for a period of three years. The fourth prayer is for a direction to the Respondent AAI to open the tenders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nikhil Sharma Vs University of Delhi 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, then a student of B.A. (Prog.) Course in the respondent no.2 Deshbandhu Gupta College, instituted this writ petition being aggrieved of the omission on the part of the respondent no.2 College and the respondent no.1 University of Delhi of which the College is an affiliate, to incorporate the marks obtained by the petitioner in the internal assessment in the subject of Hindi-A for the year 2006-07. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6th October, 2009 with a direction to the College to produce all the relevant records relating to the internal assessment of the petitioner in the subject aforesaid before the Controller of Examinations of the University and the Controller of the Examinations was directed to after examination of the record and verifying the internal assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Mr S. Pal Gupta and ors. Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. Crl.M.C.No. 2142/2007 and Crl.M.C.911/2003 were disposed of by a common order dated 04.03.2010, which reads as under:- "1. This is a part heard matter. However, today learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners do not want this matter to be disposed of on merits and seeks liberty to raise all the points which have been raised before this Court in the Trial Court at an appropriate stage at the stage of hearing arguments on charge. However, they seek protection from arrest and from personal appearance which order stands granted in their favour for the last more than five years.2. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Mohit Mathur has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.3. Taking all these facts into consideration including the factum of pendency o...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Kumar Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
ORDER1. Initially proceedings against the appellant were initiated under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. By order dated 13th May, 1999, the Juvenile Court recorded that the appellant herein Mr.Chander Kumar was above the age of 16 years on the date of commission of the offence and therefore, the Investigating Officer should file a supplementary charge sheet before the concerned adult Court.2. The supplementary charge sheet was filed and by the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2002, the appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and by order dated 25th January, 2002 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. The appeal filed by the appellant was admitted vide order dated 11th February, 2002 and has remained pending since then.4. In the meanwhile, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was enacted and the earlier enac...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. Madhan Vs M.C.D. 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 claiming to be an agreement purchaser in possession of the rear portion of property No.B-1/26, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi has filed this petition impugning the order dated 20th August, 2009 of the respondent MCD of demolition of the entire construction in the said rear portion averring the same to be unauthorized as well as the order of sealing of the said portion. Mandamus is also sought for de-sealing of the property. Directions are also claimed against the respondent MCD to act in terms of their statement to this Court in order dated 5 th August, 2002 in the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.376/1998 preferred by the petitioner.2. WP(C) No.376/1998 was disposed of vide order dated 5 th August, 2002 which is reproduced herein for convenience:" This writ petition has been filed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. and C.Ex., Kanpur Vs. M/S Coronation Glass Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: Appeal No.E/1821/08 is by the Department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 277-CE/Appeal/KNP/2008 dated 27.6.08, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority. Cross-objection No.345/08 is connected to this appeal and basically in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and alternatively seeking concessional amount of penalty in terms of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the premises of the respondents on 5.10.06, they found a stock of 98,600 pieces of Glass Inner for Vacuum Flask as against the recorded book balance of 1,61,676 pieces thus, showing shortage of 63,076 pieces valued at Rs.9,46,140/- involving total duty amount of Rs.1,54,410. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, partner of the respondent firm admitted the shortage and stated that in his absence, , the staff of the factory cleared the said short found goods from the factory withou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Kashi Industries Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: These two appeals by the Department are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 50-51/CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 21.2.08. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises of respondent on 28.11.2005, they found shortage of MS plates weighing 27.570 MT valued at Rs.7,09,432/- involving Cenvat credit of Rs.1,15,779/- . The authorised signatory admitted the shortage and expressed his inability to explain the reasons for the shortage. They paid the duty involved amounting to Rs.1,15,779/- on 8.12.05. The original authority, based on show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of the inputs ordered denial of Cenvat credit Rs.1,15,779/- and imposed equal amount as penalty in terms of section 11AC read with Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the respondent firm under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In addition, he imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on Shri Abhay Jaiswal, Manger of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Jai Keladevi P ...
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. 279/CE/Appeal/KNP/2008 dated 27.6.2008, by which the penalty imposed on the respondent under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the premises of the respondents on 17.6.06, the officers found the stock of only 71 bags of red lead as against the stock as per book of 966 bags and thus a shortage of 895 bags weighing 22.375 MT of red lead valued at Rs.12,30,625/-. Shri Santosh Kumar, Director of the respondent company admitted the shortage and explained that in his absence, the staff of the factory would have cleared the short found finished goods from the factory without issuing any Central Excise invoices and without paying the Central Excise duty thereon. This statement has not been retracted. This has been followed by paying t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Consolidated Engineering Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ...
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. 58/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2008 dated 27.6.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises on 20.10.2000, they found shortage of raw materials valued at Rs.1876557/- and the Cenvat credit involved was Rs.3,00,249/-. The authorised signatory of the appellant company admitted the shortage and was not in a position to explain reasons for the shortage. They paid the duty amount to Rs.3,00,249/- on the same date. Original authority confirmed demand of Rs.3,00,249/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh under Rule 173 Q read with section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant did not dispute the duty liability before the original authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, they contested the penalty imposed on them and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that there is no evidence of clandestine removal and s...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter Of: Sub. Jagannath Singh (Retd.) Versus Union of India a ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. Petition No. 3846/2000 was filed in the Honble Delhi High Court and was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal on its formation on 17.12.2009. 2. The applicant in this application seeks quashing of the order issued by AOC Records, Secundrabad dated 28.03.1999 which designated the applicant to proceed on retirement on 31.05.2000 and also to reinstate the applicant in service with consequential benefits. 3. The facts of the case are that the applicant was enrolled on 20.05.1972. He became Naib Subedar on 01.03.1991 and Subedar on 01.07.1996. On 30.05.1998 the Government of India issued a Notification to extend the retirement age by two years of all personnel in the Armed Forces. Accordingly, an option was sought from the applicant. The applicant gave a Non-Optee Certificate dated 20.06.1998. He went home on leave due to certain domestic problems and he rejoined and re-opted for extension of service on 31.07.1998. Despite his re-option to extend the services for two years, he receiv...
Tag this Judgment!