Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 11 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)i U Babbar Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on:22. 01.2014. Judgment delivered on:29. 01.2014. + CRL.A. 50/2006 I.U.BABBAR Through: ..... Appellant Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr.M Shamikh and Mr. Yunus Mazik, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Through: ..... Respondent Mr.P.K.Sharma, Standing Counsel for the CBI along with Mr. Bakul Jain and Mr. A.K. Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 20.12.2005 and 21.12.2005 wherein he had been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act. For the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d),...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rama Gogia Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Order delivered on: January 29, 2014 I.A. No.17653/2012 (u/O9Rule 9 CPC) & I.A. No.17654/2012 (u/S5of Limitation Act) in CS(OS) 623/2008 MS. RAMA GOGIA Through ..... Plaintiff Mr.Anjum Kumar, Adv. versus THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Defendants Through Ms.Pooja Yadav, Adv. for Ms.Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Adv. for D-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order I propose to decide the above mentioned two applications; one under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for setting aside order dated 27th September, 2011 and other under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the said application.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration, damages and compensation against the defendants including MCD and the Government of NCT of Delhi who demolished the flat of the plaintiff on the basis of the complaint made by defendants No.3 and 4. The contention of the defendants No.3 and 4 was that the c...
Tag this Judgment!C.Ramesh Vs. Director , Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute and O
Court: Delhi
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:29. 01.2014 W.P.(C) 2110/2013 and CM No.4012/2013 (directions) and CM No.4013/2013 (stay) C.RAMESH ..... PETITIONER VERSUS DIRECTOR , VALLABHBHAI PATEL CHEST INSTITUTE AND ORS ..... RESPONDENTS ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr. Yog Verdhan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ankur Chibber and Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for R-2 Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for R-3 & 4 CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This writ petition seeks to assail the order of dismissal dated 18.02.2013 issued by the Director of Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute (in short VPCI) on behalf of the Governing Body.2. The case set up by the petitioner is that apart from the fact that the impugned order passed is illegal, it is also tainted with malafides and is in breach of principles of natural justice. 2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner though at this s...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Lal @suresh @ Soda Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:29. h January, 2014 + CRL.A. 393/1998 SOHAN LAL @SURESH @ SODA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr.Sunil Sharma, APP % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14th August, 1998 and 17th August, 1998 in Sessions Case No.82/1997 arising out of FIR No.484/1997 u/s 302/34 IPC registered with PS Seelampur whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.25000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 36 months. In case of deposit of fine, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is to be paid to the father of the deceased while the remaining amount shall go the State as cost of the proceedings.2. The facts and circumstances giving ris...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Rajesh Kumar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RSA No.158/2012 29th January, 2014 % SH. RAJESH KUMAR Through: ......Appellant Mr. Rajeev Aneja, Advocate. VERSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the impugned judgment dated 11.7.2012 of the first appellate court by which the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein/defendant in the trial court.2. Trial court by its judgment dated 8.9.2010 had decreed the suit for declaration and injunction filed by the appellant herein and by which suit the appellant/plaintiff had sought quashing of the letter dated 29.10.1991 issued by the respondent herein cancelling the allotment of plot bearing No.699, Narela Industrial Estate, Delhi. Allotment was cancelled on the ground that the appellants application was treated in...
Tag this Judgment!P. Senthamil Selvan Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL. M.C.4201/2013 & CRL. M.A.15012/2013 Date of decision :29. h January, 2014 % P. SENTHAMIL SELVAN Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Adv. along with petitioner in person. versus THE STATE & ANR. Through ..... Respondents Mr. Varun Goswami, APP. Mr. B.N. Jha and Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advs. For respondent no.2. Mr. Krishnendu Dutta with Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Advs. For BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT(ORAL) 1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.73/2009, P.S. Mayapuri under Section 304A IPC on the ground that he has settled the matter with respondent no.2.2. The terms of the settlement are recorded in the settlement agreement dated 27th May, 2013, certified copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.3. Sh. Bhushan Lal, deceased was running a tea stall on the pavement near the LT Pole, C-62, Mayapuri. On 23rd July, 2009, a vehicle hit the pole due to which the ele...
Tag this Judgment!Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd Vs. C.S.T., New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. The assessee preferred this appeal on 3rd April 2013 against the Order-in-Original No. 33/VKG/2007 dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Service Tax), New Delhi confirming service tax levy of Rs.1,26,48,080.91 apart from interest under Section 75 for providing Business Auxiliary Service during February 2004 to March 2006, on the gross commission received from Maruti Finance, a unit of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Rs.24,65,694.27 already remitted by the assessee was appropriated and is so recorded in the order. 2. Against the adjudication order, the assessee filed writ petition (Civil No.8089/2012) along with miscellaneous application No.20133 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court. By the order dated 21.12.2012, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedies by way of rectification and/or revision as the case may be, in terms of such request addressed by the Counsel for the appellant herein, before the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Rswm Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Vide his impugned order, Commissioner of Customs confiscated the heavy melting scrap imported by the appellants with an option to them to clear the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs on the ground that the said heavy melting scrap contains 15s pieces of war/explosive materials. In addition, he imposed penalty of Rs.2 lakhs upon the appellants. 2. After appreciating the submissions made by both the parties, I find that the appellants placed on order for purchase of heavy melting scrap with the foreign supplier in June, 04. Bill of Entry filed by the appellant was on 04.10.2004. The instructions of the Board requiring a pre-inspection certificate certifying that the scrap was not containing any war material were issued by the Board vide its Circular No.56/2004-Cus., dated 18.04.2004. As such, it is seen that the said circular was post-import and post filing of Bill of Entry. 3. The Tribunal in the case of Nahar Sugar and allied Inds. Ltd. Vs. CC, Jamna...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd. Vs. C.S.T.Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs.29,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- imposed under Sections 76, 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 respectively, I proceed to dispose of the appeal itself in as much as a short issue is involved. 2. The appellant, which is a Japan based company, started operation in India from October, 2004 after getting a registration. It is seen that the company is being a new service provider, there were some delays in filing the ST-3 returns and consequently deposit of service tax. The said delays ranged from 6 days to 77 days approximately. However, the said service tax was subsequently deposited by the appellant. 3. In the above background, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of Show Cause Noticed dated 13.10.2006, proposing confirmation of interest of Rs.948/- and imposition of penalties. The appellant accepted their liability towards i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur Vs. M/S. Sterling Machines Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being ggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri U K Srivastava, learned DR appearing for the Revenue and Ms. Surbhi Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of AC Generators, and gen. sets and cast articles of iron. Their factory was visited by the officers who conducted various checks. As a result, 8 AC Generator involving duty of around Rs.4000/- were found short. Further there was excess of 12 gen sets and other cast articles of iron as also 56 IC engines (inputs) as also winding wire. 4. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confiscation of excess found goods and for confirmation of duty on the short found AC generator. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand in respect of shortages and confiscated excess found goods with redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/-. He also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!