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? No.3. Whether the judgment should be reported No. in Digest?1. This is a petition for grant of probate of the WILL dated 4th December, 1997 executed by late Shri Anand Parkash Goel, husband of the petitioner.It is alleged in the petition that late Shri Anand Parkash Goel had executed a WILL dated 4th December, 1997. He died on 24 th July, 2004 and was survived by four Class-I legal heirs i.e. his widow/petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi Test Goel and three sons namely Shri Nitin Goel, Shri Rohit Kumar Goel and Shri Ajay Kumar Goel.2. The citation was published in "Indian Express" (New Delhi Edition) and notice issued to the non-applicant legal heirs of the deceased testator was also duly served on them. Non-applicant legal heir Ajay Kumar Goel filed no objection in the form of an affidavit on his behalf as also on behalf of other non-applicant legal heir Rohit Kumar Goel, who h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
PER: D.N. PANDA 1. Two batches of appeals were made against two adjudications done in respect of different imports of ball bearings involving following appellants who came before Tribunal facing consequences of adjudication as depicted in the table below. Both sets of appeals are dealt by this common order in view of similar cause of action and common investigation resulting in similar consequences. Both sides could not inform whether other persons/concerns against whom adjudication was also done by the following order were whether in appeal accordingly this order is confined to the appellants as appearing in the table below: Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 105/2005 dated: 30.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 30.04.2004 Consequence arose under O-I-O No. 100/2005 dated: 28.11.2005 against allegations in SCN No. 338/XIV/96/2003 Dt. 22.11.2004 Sl.No Appellants Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence of Adjudication Batch of Customs Appeal No. Consequence o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2009(1)14; 2008(38)PTC325(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.IA 6442/20051. This order will dispose of is 6442/2005, an application for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark and trading style 'EVERGREEN', or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's mark.2. The Plaintiff, a partnership firm was established on 30th'September 1963 for preparing and selling rich traditional Indian sweets in the best of taste and quality.' The business has continued unhindered by the death of the original foundered; it has been functioning without interruption under the trading style/trademark 'EVERGREEN SWEET HOUSE' (herafter 'the mark').' At present there are five partners of the Plaintiff firm. Besides marketing their products wholesale to their varied customers in India and abroad, the plaintiff's EVERGREEN SWEET HOUSE, a multi-cuisine Restaurant, with 4000 sq. ft. shop floor, is situated at a conspicuous location in the prime locality of South Delhi where food to suit every palate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4396
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The common thread that weaves through the present petitions is the aspect of criminal culpability of persons undertaking 'sting' operations under the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said revision petitions are filed against the order on framing charges. 2. On 05-11-2003, M/s. Dilip Singh Judeo (accused No. 1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests allegedly received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. Nine lacs in the presence of his Additional Private Secretary (APS), Shri Natwar Rateria (accused No. 2) from one Shri Bhupinder Singh Patel @ Rahul (accused No. 3) as consideration for future 'favours' with regard to certain mining projects in the states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. The said incident had been secretly video recorded by accused No. 3 and one Shri Arvind Vijaymohan (accused No. 4) acquainted with accused No. 3 who arranged for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT170; 2008(101)DRJ582
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short the MCOCA), the appellant seeks to assail the order on charge dated 12th October, 2006 and the charge dated 3-11-2006 whereby the learned Special Judge, MCOCA, New Delhi has charged the appellant under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short the ITP Act), Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5) and Section 4 of the MCOCA and Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC in FIR No. 96/2005, Police Station Chanakya Puri.2. The brief facts as they emerge from the record are that on 19th April, 2005, SI Sajjan Singh, on receipt of information that the appellant Kamaljeet Singh and his associate Pappi supply girls for prostitution in Five Star Hotels and carry on their business through mobile No. 9810645454 9810645454 , passed on the said information to ACP Kumar Gyanesh, who directed SI Sajjan Singh to strike a deal on the above mobile numbe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 134(2006)DLT21
Hima Kohli, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association Multi State Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (in short referred to as `the Society),through Mr. K.C. Bajaj, impugning inter alias the order dated 10.2.2006, passed by the respondent No. 1, Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies holding that the representation dated 20.10.2005, received from respondents No. 2 to 6, members of the petitioner society to the effect that the elections held on 19.10.2005, to the Members of the Board of Directors of the society was conducted in contravention of the Act be admitted as an election dispute filed under Section 84(1) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (in short referred to as `the Act') and appointing an Arbitrator to settle the disputes inter se respondents No. 2 to 6 and the petitioner society, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 84 of the Act. Along with the writ petition, an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 127(2006)DLT431; 2006(88)DRJ545
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This order shall dispose of is No.2061/2005 and is No. 4326/2005. The former application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') wherein the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. The second application (IA No.4326/2005) has been filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission of this Court for withdrawal of the statement made by the Senior Counsel for the defendants on 16.03.2005 before this Court. The other prayer made in this application is that the application filed by the plaintiff under Order under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of CPC (IA No. 2061/2005), be heard and disposed of. The statement made by the learned senior counsel on 16.03.2005 which the defendants seek to withdraw reads...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT371
R.C. Jain, J.1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.5.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi, thereby, convicting the appellant L.K. Jain (for short to be referred as A-1) of the offence punishable under Sections 120-BIPC, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') and for the substantive offences punishable underSection 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Vide the same judgment, the appellant Balam Singh (hereinafter to be referred as A-2) has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Vide separate order of the even date, A-1 L.K. Jain has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac or in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(3)SLJ118CAT
1. Canteen Mazdoor Sabha, represented through its President, and one more affected party have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: "A. Call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the order dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure-h) and Order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 with further declaration that the applicant continued to be employee of Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation till 3.5.1999 and their absorption in the National Airport Authority by impugned order dated 13.12.2001 by respondent No. 2 was illegal and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act; B. Give further declaration that the persons mentioned in Para (ix) of the application have completed 10 years of service with the Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi and are entitled to all other service/retiral benefits including pension; C. Give directions to the respondents to release arrears of benefit in view of the abovementio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003VIIAD(Delhi)1; 107(2003)DLT385; 2003(71)DRJ178; 2003(3)JCC1669
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. PREFACE 1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as pro...
Tag this Judgment!