Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments

Rukmani Devi Vs. Federal Auto Store and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)514; AIR1994Delhi200; 1994(28)DRJ380

Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This suit has been filed by Rukmani Devi. Rukmani Devi asserts that her husband Aditya Narain was partner of defendant No.1, M/s Federal Auto Store. The other partner of the husband was Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goel. (2) Rukmani Devi,in this suit,claims Rs.l,35,484.50p. Statement of Mr.Arjun Dass was recorded for and on behalf of the plaintiff, and defendant No.2 has come into witness box as a witness also. His statement makes the nature of the transaction between the parties quite clear. (3) It is admitted by Pradeep Kumar Goel that Rukmani Devi, the plaintiff, is the wife of Late Aditya Narain, and that Aditya Narain died on 18.08.1978, and that Aditya Narain was a partner with Pradeep Kumar Goel till he died. It is asserted by Pradeep Kumar Goel that regular books of accounts were kept by the defendant No. 1. He brought the account books with him to Court, in which the account of Rukmani Devi was recorded. (4) Pradeep Kumar Goel makes an admission which is worthy of...

Rajni JaIn Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)397; 53(1994)DLT465; 1994(28)DRJ383

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, a candidate for appointment as notary, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notification No. F.17/5/91-Judl., dated 30 April 1992, whereby 32advocates were appointed as Notaries under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952. These advocates are respondents 4 to 35. Respondents 1,2 and 3 are respectively the Lt. Governor of Delhi, the Delhi Administration through the Secretary (Law and Judicial), and again the Administrator of Union Territory of Delhi through its Chief Secretary. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents I, 2 and 3 to appoint her as a Notary as it is stated that there are still eight vacancies existing as she says she fulfillls all the qualifications for appointment as a Notary. Further direction is sought that appointment of Notaries be made following the procedure prescribed under the Notaries Act, 1952. and the Notaries Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Act' and 'the Rul...

Gulf Air Company Vs. Niranjan Singh and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by Gulf Air Company against the order of the District Forum No. II in Case No. 679/91 (D.F.I)/90(D.F.II) dated 18.1.93. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents traveled from London to New Delhi by Gulf Air Flight vide passenger ticket No. 0724405486827-C and 0724405286827-5. On arrival at New Delhi, on 9-7-90 one of the baggages of the respondents was found missing. A report was lodged with the appellant together with a list of the contents of the lost baggage which were valued at USD 2,394.08 equivalent to Rs. 83,790/-. The respondents having not receive the baggages had to stay in a Hotel of Delhi for 4 days. 3. Having failed to get the lost baggage they filed a regular claim for the aforesaid amount with the appellant. However, after examining the claim the appellant offered to pay an amount of USD 293.40 only in full and final settlement of the claim which was declined by the respondents. Subsequently on a leg...

Gammon Far Chems Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT59TriDel

1. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar, they are therefore disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 899/88-C arises out of Order-in Original No.103/87 dated 9-11-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore withdrawing exemption availed of by the appellants M/s. Gammon Far Chems under Notification No. 85/85 during 1985-86 on the grounds that the values of clearances of excisable goods from appellants' factory and from M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd., Bombay, a subsidiary of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. which were required to be clubbed together had exceeded the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs during the year 1984-85. While demanding appropriate duty on excisable goods in respect of which exemption was availed during the said period the Collector also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants.Appeal No. 475/88-C is directed against Order No. 5/88(B)(D) dated 29-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras setting asi...

Prabhat Oil Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT296TriDel

1. All these appeals involving common issues were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by a notice dated 1-2-1984 issued to the appellants the Superintendent of Central Excise sought to recover cess as duty of excise at the rate of Rs. 5/- per quintal of vegetable oil produced by them with effect from 1-1-1984 in terms of Notification No. GSR-881(E) dated 8-12-1983 issued by the Govt. of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. By the said notice it was also suggested that the Cess was also leviable on such stock of oils which had already been produced.2. The appellants submitted that Cotton seed oil is first obtained by crushing cotton seeds in a expeller and the oil containing 'bagra' is collected in a tank. Addition of caustic soda results in the settling down of 'bagra' which is used in soap stock and cotton seed oil free from 'bagra' is separated. In regard to castor oil as well, the appellants state...

Kamani Foods Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT202TriDel

1. The matter considered here has come up on a reference to Larger Bench relating to simultaneous availing of Modvat Credit for certain specified goods and of complete exemption from duty on other specified goods in terms of notification giving exemption to small scale industrial units as contained in Notification 175/86 dated 1-3-1986.Paras 3, 4 & 5 of the referring order dated 4-3-1993 of the East Regional Bench are reproduced below : "We have considered the submissions. The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to two decisions by the South Regional Bench and one by the Special Bench which had followed the Regional Bench decisions in favour of allowing simultaneous availment of Modvat Credit for certain specified goods and of complete exemption from duty for other specified goods. We find in this connection that there is a decision by the Special Bench in Kharia Cement Works v. Collector of C. Ex. reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 696 (Tri.). That was case where the manufa...

Prabha Vs. Hali Chit Fund Co. (P.)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)49ITD566(Delhi)

1. The assessee chit fund company has filed this appeal aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 23,71,000, for infringement of the provisions contained in Section 269SS of the Act, by accepting loan or deposit in cash.2. Shri K. Sampath the learned counsel for the appellant company, submitted that, the company which carries on the business of chit fund, had a total capital of Rs. 10,200. He drew our attention to the Balance Sheet of the company as on 31-3-1990 and submitted that, the amount received towards subscription to various chits aggregated to Rs. 45.60 lakhs and the exact amount had been granted as loans to the subscribers. The amount that was due to prized subscribers was Rs. 6.50 lakhs and the subscription in arrears was to the tune of Rs. 7.22 lakhs. He also submitted that, the cash and the bank balance was a paltry figure of Rs. 37,382 and there were hardly any asset worth the mention.3. Shri Sampath submitted...

D.D.A. Vs. Om Prakash Buveja

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 10.2.93. Briefly the facts are that the complainant is the owner of house No. B-l /527 Janakpuri. It is alleged that he had been paying the sum of Rs. 60.28 as half yearly ground rent to the respondent as per conditions of the lease agreement regularly. However, no receipts were issued by them for deposit of the amounts in the State Bank of India (S.B.I.). He had deposited the rent for June, 1993 on 3rd December, 1982 in the S.B.I. He furnished all the details about the said payment through various letters to the DDA but still the amount had not been credited to his account. The respondent again asked him to deposit the amount vide letter dated 7/11 Oct., 88. The complainant therefore prayed that the respondent be directed to credit the said amount and pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,766/-. 2. The DDA, respondent No. 1, in their W.S. pleaded that the amount deposited by the complainant ...

Hari Chand Gupta Vs. Saraswati Builders and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. Avtar Pennathur, Member: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased a commercial flat from Saraswati Builders bearing No. 27-GF on the ground floor of Saraswati House, Nehru Place measuring 1013.38 sq. feet. He paid an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-. Further he paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ordered by the High Court in Suit No. 546-1980 vide order dated 20.8.80. The complaint was made to the High Court under Section 448 of the IPC against the complainant. The complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the defendant. Thus he paid a total consideration of Rs. 2,95,000/- for the commercial flat. 2. The property stands registered and mutated in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 20.8.80, the date of the order of the High Court referred to earlier. The assessment of property tax is also in the name of the complainant w.e.f. 20.8.80. The complainant has submitted that he wants to transfer his property to the name o...

Bhima S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT276TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 25-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The facts briefly are that the appellants herein had filed claim for excess production rebate on Sugar amounting to Rs. 15,81,550.50 for the period May to September, 1982 under Notification No. 132/82. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune-V Division in his order dated 9-5-1985 sanctioned out of above amount claim sum of Rs. 10,11,733.38. This order of the Assistant Collector sanctioning rebate was sought to be revised by the jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune on 1-10-1985 passed an Order under Sub-section (2) of Section 35E of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, holding that the Assistant Collector order sanctioning rebate requires to be reviewed, as it was found by the Collector to be erroneous and not in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 132/82. The Collector of Central Excise Pune, directed to ...