Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments

P.N. Bhargava Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This is a case of double allotment of a flat to the complainant. The matter is covered by our decision in Shanti Devi v. Deputy Director of Housing (Case No. C-621/92) decided on 21st January, 1994. 2. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to allotment of the flat at the same price at which the flat was allotted to him in the draw for first time on 3.7.1990. He is further entitled to get interest from the respondent @ 10% p.a. from the date of the deposits till the date of delivery of possession and Rs. 12,500/- as damages. We order accordingly. The respondent is directed to pay the amount of interest and the damages within a period of three months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 500/-. 3. Cost of Rs. 200/- paid by the DDA vide Cheque No. 4986168 dated 7.2.1994. Complaint allowed....

Vbc Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(55)LC178Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an Appeal against the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters falling under sub-Heading 2202.11 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were availing the set off facility in terms of Notfn. No. 201/79 dt. 4.6.1979. The said Notfn. was rescinded with effect from 1.3.1986 by Notfn. No. 186/86-CE dt. 1.3.1986. The balance of Rs. 62,617.36 in their RG 23 Part II Account as on 28.2.1986/1.3.1986 was expunged by the Asstt. Collector after the rescinding of the Notfn. No. 201//9 dt. 4.6.1979 with effect from 1.3.1986. The Appellants filed a claim for the refund of the said amount, which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector. The Asstt.Collector, however, held that by virtue of the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 Notfn. No. 325/86-CE dt. 27.5.1986 had retrospective effect entitling the Appellants to the credit of duty on the inputs received during the period 1.3.1986 to ...

Peico Electronics and Vs. Collr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1053TriDel

1. M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Peico'), have filed the present appeal against the order-in-original No. 46/C. Ex./1988, dated the 29th February, 1988, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.2. It was alleged in the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 3-12-1986, read with supplementary show cause notices dated 22-6-1987 and 2-9-1987, that Peico had failed to correctly determine the assessable value of audio goods manufactured by them during the period from 1983 to September, 1986 by claiming inadmissible deductions from the price realised from their dealers, and had thus paid Rs. 25658659.50 less by way of Central Excise duty, than the duty correctly leviable.3. In place of replying to the show cause notice the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, however, rejected the writ petition, inter alia on the ground that the facts were disputed.4. The Collector, Central Excise, Pune who adj...

Union of India Vs. Cosmique International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT71; 1994(29)DRJ554; 1994(73)ELT526(Del); (1994)107PLR8

Arun Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the impugned circular dated 6-1-1991 withdrawing cash compensatory support w.e.f. 1-1-1979 was quashed in so far as it affected confirmed contracts already entered into prior to 1-1-1979. At the outset learned Counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that the same circular was quashed by other High Courts in similar circumstances and the Govt. while accepting the judgments in those cases has already made payments to the parties concerned. thereforee, it is urged that it is not open to the Govt. to agitate the same question now. The Govt. cannot be permitted to discriminate against the writ petitioners herein who have raised claims which are identical to those whose claims have been already honoured as per the judgments of respective High Courts in their cases. The point is well taken and we feel that the Union of...

Rakesh Kumar Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(42)BLJR1087; 1994CriLJ1942; ILR1994Delhi373

ORDERP.K. Bahri, J. 1. On difference of opinion arising between the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court on questions of law, who heard the petition on merits, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench. 2. The legal questions which arise for decision are us to whether in view of the provisions of Section 36A to 36D of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter to be called N.D.P.S. Act), was the Metropolitan Magistrate entitled to remand the petitioner in judicial custody during the investigation of the case registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No. 532 of 1992 dated October 30, 1992 from time to time for 15 days at a time till the challan is filed and secondly in case it were to be held that the Metropolitan Magistrate had no power to remand the petitioner in judicial custody for a period more than 15 days in all, whether the illegal detention of the petitioner under the remand orders made by the Metropolitan Magistrate from time to time entitles the...

Subhash Verma Vs. Neelam and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)689; 1994(28)DRJ442

V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Subhash Verma 'has filed this petition thereby challenging the order dated 13.10.1993 of Shri O.P, Dwivedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide which the revision petition of Smt.Neelam was allowed and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to assess the quantum of maintenance payable to Smt.Neelam, petitioner No. 1. (2) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Smt.neelam and her minor daughter Kumari Sonia (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioners') filed a petition for maintenance against Shri Subhash Verma (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Averments made in the aforesaid petition were that Smt.Neelam was married to Subhash Verma on 20.9.1977 according to hindu rites and she started residing with her husband. It was further pleaded that from the very beginning Subhash Verma started maltreating ...

C.N. Sukumaran Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT360TriDel

1. Shri C.N. Sukumaran of M/s Vanitha Cosmetics and Shri V.G. Hirusah of M/s Hirusah Enterprise of Kancheepuram have filed appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Madras.Simultaneously, they have also filed stay applications, for dispensing with the pre-deposit of Rs. 4,63,403/- towards duty and Rs. 50,000/- towards penalty on Shri C.N. Sukumaran and penalty of Rs.10,000/- on Shri V.S. Hirusah. Since, both the matters have emerged from the same order and as such the same are disposed of by this common order.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that in the case of Shri Hirusah vide Order-in-Original dated 15-10-1992 an adjudication was made and allegation for clearances of Rs. 30 lakhs were reduced to Rs. 17 lakhs approximately in that case and a search was effected on 8-11-1990 on the appellant's premises. He pleaded that the brand name "Lavanya" belongs to Shri Hirusah and the appel...

Surya Roshni Limited Vs. Electronic Sound Components Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)652; AIR1995Delhi92; 1994(1)ARBLR225(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT489; 1994(28)DRJ459

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff underorder 39 Rules 1 &2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in' this application it has been prayed that the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers and representatives be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing and passing off their products of electronics chokes under the trade mark 'EBHASKAR' with the device of a Sun or under any other identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark for the goods of manufacture of the plaintiffs. (2) Brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff-company was originally incorporated on 17th October, 1973 as Parkash Tubes Pvt.Ltd. and changed its name to Surya Roshni Ltd. vide certificate dated 14th December, 1990 issued to this effect by the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi. It has further been stated in the plaint that since the year 1984, the plaintiff-company is engaged in the well...

Sunehri Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)913; 53(1994)DLT770; 1994(29)DRJ17; (1994)108PLR20

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to impugn the order dated September 19, 1981, passed by the Joint Secretary, Land and Building, which is annexure A to the petition. (2) The petitioner was owner of a plot of land. which was situated at Karkardooma. This land of the petitioner was acquired by notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 on November 13, 1959. The land was finally acquired vide Award No. 54A of 1970-71 given by the Land Acquisition Collector in 1971. The petitioner was left with no other land after this acquisition and he applied that he should be given a plot of land for residential purposes, as his land was acquired by the Government. He made an application dated March 20. 1975. to the Delhi Administration, Delhi, and received a reply dated September 29, 1975.to the offect that the case of the petitioner for an alternative plot can be processed further only when the compensation is offered/paid to him ...

Jaswant Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1065; 1994(29)DRJ330

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) By this writ petition the petitioners who are Superintendents in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi claim the same scale of pay as is admissible to Superintendents in the High Court of Delhi. The facts leading to the present writ petition arc as under:- (2) Prior to the year 1973 the Superintendents in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge as well as Superintendents in the High Court were in the same scale of pay viz. Rs.350-575(pre-revised). How subsequently disparity occurred between the pay scales of Superintendents working in the Office of District & Sessions Judge and the Superintendents working in the High Court has a small history about it. In 1970 this Court framed High Court Officers & Servants(Salaries, Leave, Allowances & Pension) Rules (for short Rules). Rule 2 of the Rules read with Schedule(Part Ii item 5) thereto prescribed a scale of Rs.350- 25-575 for the Superintendents working in the High Court. On the recommendations o...