Court : Delhi
1. this is a petition under section 482 cr.p.c. seeking quashing of the complaint under section 9 of the central excise and salt act, 1944 and the proceedings arising out of the same in the complaint case titled `shri s.n.malhotra, superintendent of central excise(anti-evasion) v. m/s office machines pvt. ltd and others', qua the petitioner. 2. briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent no.1 through sh.s.n. malhotra, superintendent, central excise (anti-evasion) filed a complaint under section 9 of the central excise and salt act, 1944(now known as central excise act, 1944) alleging that the petitioner has indulged in evading central excise duty amounting to `4,20,234,52 by clandestinely removing/selling the office machiness. as per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner t.r. bhagat was director of m/s office machines pvt. ltd. as such, he is sought to be prosecuted vicariously for the offences punishable under section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the central excise act alleged to have been committed by the company. 3. learned magistrate, after taking cognizance of the complaint and recording pre-charge evidence has charged the aforesaid company as well as the petitioner under section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the central excise act. 4. on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the respondent complainant is seeking to hold the petitioner vicariously liable for the offences under section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
g. rohini, cj. 1. the petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable led flash lights. this writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent no.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under section 48 of the legal metrology act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under section 36(1) of the said act on payment of compounding fee of rs.25,000/-. the prayer in the writ petition is as follows: (i) issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of rules 32 of the legal metrology (packaged commodities) rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the legal metrology act, 2009 and is ultra vires the act; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction thereby clarifying that rules issued by respondent no.1 will be applicable to inter-state trade and commerce and those issued by respondent no.2 will be applicable to intra-state trade and commerce; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction thereby direction respondent no.3 to compound the offence of the petitioner by accepting compounding fee as laid down in rule 25 of the delhi legal metrology (enforcement) rules, 2011. ? 2. as could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner's premises was inspected by the team of the legal metrology, government of nct of delhi on 22.11.2013 and it was found that one of the packets containing rechargeable led flash lights did not bear the word rs./ rs.'. in other words, the mrp shown on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
g. rohini, cj. 1. the petitioner is a registered trader who carries on sale of imported rechargeable led flash lights. this writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent no.3 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under section 48 of the legal metrology act, 2009, compounding the alleged offence punishable under section 36(1) of the said act on payment of compounding fee of rs.25,000/-. the prayer in the writ petition is as follows: (i) issue a writ, order or direction quashing sub-rule 3 of rules 32 of the legal metrology (packaged commodities) rules, 2011 in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of the legal metrology act, 2009 and is ultra vires the act; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction thereby clarifying that rules issued by respondent no.1 will be applicable to inter-state trade and commerce and those issued by respondent no.2 will be applicable to intra-state trade and commerce; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction thereby direction respondent no.3 to compound the offence of the petitioner by accepting compounding fee as laid down in rule 25 of the delhi legal metrology (enforcement) rules, 2011. ? 2. as could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner's premises was inspected by the team of the legal metrology, government of nct of delhi on 22.11.2013 and it was found that one of the packets containing rechargeable led flash lights did not bear the word rs./ rs.'. in other words, the mrp shown on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
in the high court of delhi at new delhi $~57. * + % w.p.(crl) 319/2017 ranveer singh date of decision:30. 01.2017 ........ petitioner through: mr. ravindra s. garia, n.k. khanna, amitabh nihar and rakesh bhati, advocates versus n.c.t. of delhi ..... respondent through: mr. rajesh mahajan, asc with mr. peeyush bhatia, adv for state with si sanjeev kumar, ps vivek vihar coram: hon'ble mr. justice vipin sanghi vipin sanghi, j.(open court) 1. the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the quashing of fir6162015 dated 09.07.2015 registered u/s 420/4ipc at ps vivek vihar. the premise on which the said prayer is made is that on the same facts, respondent no.2/ complainant had preferred a complaint u/s 138 of negotiable instrument act, which has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution on 20.08.2015 by the ld. judicial magistrate. the petitioner has placed reliance on section 256 cr pc to submit that the dismissal of the said complaint tantamounts to acquittal of the accused. the further submission is that since the petitioner/ accused stands acquitted in the said complaint which was premised on the same facts on the basis of w.p.(crl) 319/2017 page 1 of 23 which the fir in question has been registered, by force of section 300 cr pc the petitioner cannot be tried again in the aforesaid police case fir registered against the petitioner vide fir no.616/2015.2. section 300(1) cr pc is relevant for the present purpose and the same reads as follows: 300. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
in the high court of delhi at new delhi judgment delivered on: october 12, 2017 + w.p.(c) 7936/2016, cm no.32957/2016 chintu kumari ........ petitioner through: ms. suroor mander, adv. versus jawaharlal nehru university ..... respondent through: ms. ginny j.routray, ms. anushka ashok & ms. bhavna pal, advs. coram: hon'ble mr justice v. kameswar rao judgment v. kameswar rao, j1 the present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-" petitioner respectfully prays that this hon ble court may be pleased to:-"(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order vide office order no.209/cp/2016 dated 22 august 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner no.1 of a fine of rs.5,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) and the w.p.(c) no.7936/2016 page 1 of 40 requirement of furnishing an undertaking; and ii). issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order no.157/cp/2016 dated 25 april 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner and to declare the proceedings resulting in such punishment as void being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the... petitioner; and iii). pass such further order or orders as this hon ble court may deem fit. 2. this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated august 22, 2016 which is the order of the appellate authority (vice chancellor) of the jawaharlal nehru university through which the... petitioner has been punished .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
in the high court of delhi at new delhi judgment delivered on: october 12, 2017 + w.p. (c) 7934/2016, cm no.32953/2016 anant prakash narayan ........ petitioner through: ms. suroor mander, adv. versus jawaharlal nehru university ..... respondent through: ms. ginny j.routray, ms. anushka ashok and ms. bhavna pal, advs. coram: hon'ble mr justice v. kameswar rao judgment v. kameswar rao, j1 the present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-" petitioner respectfully prays that this hon ble court may be pleased to:-"(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order vide office order no.211/cp/2016 dated 22 august 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner no.1 of a fine of rs.5,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) and the w.p.(c) no.7934/2016 page 1 of 41 requirement of furnishing an undertaking; and ii). issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order no.159/cp/2016 dated 25 april 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner and to declare the proceedings resulting in such punishment as void being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the... petitioner; and iii). pass such further order or orders as this hon ble court may deem fit. 2. this writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated august 22, 2016 which is the order of the appellate authority (vice chancellor) of the jawaharlal nehru university through which the... petitioner has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
in the high court of delhi at new delhi judgment delivered on: october 12, 2017 + w.p.(c) 7943/2016, cm no.32968/2016 shweta raj ........ petitioner through: ms. suroor mander, adv. versus jawaharlal nehru university ..... respondent through: ms. ginny j.routray, ms. anushka ashok & ms. bhavna pal, advs. coram: hon'ble mr justice v. kameswar rao judgment v. kameswar rao, j1 the present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-" petitioner respectfully prays that this hon ble court may be pleased to:-"(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order vide office order no.206/cp/2016 dated 22 august 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner no.1 of a fine of rs.5,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) and the w.p.(c) no.7943/2016 page 1 of 40 requirement of furnishing an undertaking; and ii). issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order no.154/cp/2016 dated 25 april 2016 by the chief proctor of the university imposing punishment on... petitioner and to declare the proceedings resulting in such punishment as void being violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the... petitioner; and iii). pass such further order or orders as this hon ble court may deem fit. 2. this writ petition seeks quashing of the orders dated august 22, 2016 and april 25, 2016 whereby the... petitioner has been punished with a fine of rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) [initially rs.20,000/- (twenty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1999]97CompCas152(Delhi); 1998CriLJ4383; 1999(1)Crimes181; 75(1998)DLT155; 1998(47)DRJ87
d.k. jain, j. 1. in this petition under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, the petitioners pray for setting aside of the order passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate on august 17, 1996, directing framing of charge against them under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short, 'the act').2. mahendra steel tubes limited, accused no. 1, issued certain cheques signed by its chairman-cum-managing director, accused no. 2, in favor of respondent no. 1 for purchasing certain goods from them. the said cheques, on presentation were received back unpaid with the remark 'insufficient funds'. thereupon, a legal notice was issued on behalf of respondent no. 1 to the affronted company demanding payment and there being no response to the notice, a complaint under the said section was filed against the company, and its three directors, viz., the chairman-cum-managing director and the petitioners, the other two directors of the company. after pre-summoning evidence, all the named accused were summoned and charge under section 138 of the act was framed against all of them.3. the present petition has been filed by the two directors (other than chairman-cum-mangling director) assailing framing of charge against them on the ground that they never were in charge of the conduct of the business of the accused-company and, thereforee, cannot be made vicariously liable for an offence committed by it.4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties.5. for the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT356; 2002(64)DRJ340
k.s. gupta, j.1. in this petition under section 482 cr.p.c., the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 16th january, 2001 passed by a metropolitan magistrate whereby the applications filed for dropping the proceedings by them were dismissed and quashing of complaint case no. 4193/99 filed by respondent no. 1.2. submission advanced by sh. h.s. phoolka for petitioners was that unless there is averment in the complaint and/or evidence in terms of section 141 of the negotiable instruments act (for short the 'act'), person who is merely a director of company, cannot be held liable under section 138 of the act. according to him, in view of averments as made in the complaint and statement recorded on 3rd december, 1999 of respondent no. 1/complainant (cw-1), the trial magistrate was unjustified in declining to drop the proceedings against the petitioners. reliance was placed on the decisions in smt. nagawwa v. veeranna shivalingappa konjalgi and ors., : 1976crilj1533 , girdhari lal rathi v. p.t.v. ramnujachari and anr., 1997 (2) crimes 658, smt. sharda agarwal and ors., v. add. chief metropolitan magistrate and anr., 1992 (1) crimes 812, mahendra pratap singh ratra and anr., v. m/s. n.k. metals and anr., : 75(1998)dlt155 , ashok chaturvedi and ors., v. shitul h. chanchani and anr., : 1998crilj4091 , mohan kumar mukherjee v. ledo tea company limited, 1998 (4) crimes 270, saraswathy amma and anr. v. swil limited and anr., : 83(2000)dlt75 , k.p.g.nair v. m/s. jindal menthol .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* in the high court of delhi at new delhi % date of decision:21. 11.2013 + wp(c) no.5597 of 2002 the associated cement cos. ltd. & anr...... petitioners through: ms. mrinal mazumdar, adv. for mr. u.a. rana, adv. for the petitioners. versus union of india & anr. through: ..... respondents mr. prasook jain, adv. for mr. b.v. niren, cgsc for the respondents. coram: hon'ble mr. justice v.k.jain judgement v.k.jain, j.(oral) in exercise of the powers conferred by the jute packaging materials (compulsory use in packing commodities) act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said act ), the central government, vide order dated 15.3.1995, inter alia directed that 50 per cent of total production of cement will be in jute packaging material. the petitioner before this court being manufacturer of cement, the aforesaid order applied to it.2. vide show cause notice dated 11.12.1996 issued to various cement manufacturers, the jute commissioner, noticing that they had not been using any jute material at all for packaging of cement and thereby disobeying the aforesaid statutory order, and also referring to a judgement of the supreme court of april, 1996 upholding the constitutional validity of the said act, called them upon to show cause as to why penal action be not taken against them and every person in charge of the concerned company for the conduct of its business, for continued violation of the directions contained in the aforesaid order of the government. the petitioner before this court .....
Tag this Judgment!