Delhi Court April 1994 Judgments

Nigam Enterprises Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)325; [1994]81CompCas902(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT326; 1994(29)DRJ178

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioners seek Writ of Certiorari setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.8.1992passed by the Court of District Judge, Delhi in Suit No.85/ 86 Delhi Financial Corporation v. the petitioners. The petitioners arc the principal debtors and sureties. TheDistrictCourthas,on an application filed by Delhi Financial Corporation under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, determined the liability of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.48,854.37 with interest. (2) The sole grievance of the petitioners is that Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) does not contemplate a suit being filed and tried and hence no judgment and decree could have been passed therein. (3) Though at the first blush the contention raised appears to be sound but on a little probe we find the petitioners' contention meritless. (4) As against erring borrowers of the financial corporation, the Act contemplates three types o...

Pooran Chand Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT241; 1994(29)DRJ428

P.N. Nag, J.(1) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.3.1992 (annexure A to the petition) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the license fee with effect from 16.2.1990 to 15.2.1991 @ Rs.1,690.00 per month and with effect from 16.2.1991 to 15.1.1992 @ Rs.3,380.00 per month in respect of Piao site measuring 81.05 sq. ft., Dtc block, Isbt complex subject to certain terms and conditions. (2) The facts set out in the petition, in substance, are that the petitioner is a poor scheduled caste person and on the basis of compassionate ground, the respondent allotted 3.9 sq. metres (42 sq. ft. - approximately) Piao site at I.S.B.T. on 30.4.1985 on license basis at the rate of Rs.324.00 p.m.as license fee. Initially the.h1 Cw 1183/ 92 license was for 11 months and thereafter it was renewed from time to time, as referred to in para 2 of the petition. (3) By the impugned letter/order dated 11.3.1992, the demand raised against the petitioner is wholly unreaso...

Sarbati Devi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)345; AIR1995Delhi102; 54(1994)DLT303; 1994(29)DRJ180

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This petition filed on 19th July, 1991 lays challenge to Land Acquisition proceedings conducted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Notification under Section 4 was issued on 30th October, 1963. Notification under Section 6 was made on 16th January, 1969. Award of compensation was made on 10th September, 1986. The challenge is laid on dual grounds. Legality of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 has been challenged and consequently the validity of the award, in the alternative the proceedings arc sought to be struck down on the ground of unreasonable delay in making the award calculated from the dates of notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. It is submitted that construction work of the petitioner is standing on the land possession where of was not taken till now and belated taking of possession by the respondent would irreparably prejudice the petitioners. (2) In the counter it is submitted that the lan...

Duphar Interfran Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT724TriDel

1. M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order of Collector, Customs. The Collector of Customs in his order held that :- "However, the facts and circumstances clearly establish that the goods are mis-sent to India. I, therefore, take a very lenient view and allow re-export of the goods as claimed in the Bill of Entry on a token redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/-." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4-7-1992,134 packages (2280 kgs Gross weight) of 6 Amino Pencillanic Acid from Russia landed into India at I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi. The appellant submitted that the goods were not meant for the appellant's branch in India but for the appellant's branch in U.K. The sender intimated the Collector Customs, I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi on 22-7-1992 that the goods were shipped by the sender in error to the appellants on account of communication gap; that the goods were destined for United Kingdom.As the goods had been imported into India, the ld. Collector co...

Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT219TriDel

1. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals, Baroda (Appellants), are manufacturing P.P. Food falling under T.I. 1B and availing the benefit under Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983 and claiming the abatement of duty paid on the cost of Metal containers.But as per the Notification No. 191/83, dated 8-7-1983 amending Notification No. 34/83, dated 1-3-1983 and the Explanation inserted thereto, according to the Department, the sizes eligible for exemption have been prescribed. The appellants do not utilise the metal containers as described in the Notification, and as such they cannot avail exemption from duty in the value of metal containers used in the packing of PP food products from 8-7-1983! In the circumstances, show cause notices were issued on 7-1-1984; 21-5-1984; and 10-7-1984 raising demands (i) for Rs. 55,984.93 for the period from 8-7-1983 to 31-12-1983; (ii) for Rs. 35,431.92 for the period from 1-1-1984 to 31-3-1984 and (iii) for Rs. 36,901.29 for the per...

Capberry Packings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC475Tri(Delhi)

1. Along with the present appeal, the appellants have also filed the captioned application for Condonation of Delay in preferring the present appeal.2. When the case was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they requested that the application be decided in their absence on merits. One Shri Yogesh Kumar, claiming himself to be the clerk of Shri Vinay Garg, Advocate, also appeared only to draw the attention of the Bench regarding the said request. Accordingly, we perused the application and the submissions contained in their further written submissions, dated 10-9-1993 and heard Shri Somesh Arora, learned JDR.3. In their application the appellants have stated that the impugned order in the present appeal was communicated to them on 25-3-1992 and as per Sub-section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it ought to have been filed on or before 25-6-1992 but it was received in the Registry on 25th August, 1992. They have stated that in the present cas...

World Wild Fund for Nature India Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 54(1994)DLT286

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This petition has been filed in public interest by the World Wild Fund for Nature India, with the prayer to take all proper and necessary steps to protect the wild animals, tigers in particular, from being poached or illegally hunted. It has been further prayed to take steps to stop the illegal trade in animal articles. In the petition, it is also suggested that a Committee be appointed which can look into all the aspects of illegal hunting, protection, growth and habitat of wild animals and suggest measures to protect the existing wild life of India and also suggest measures for its proper and healthy growth.(2) The Indian Parliament passed the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, on 7/09/1972. This legislation was enacted to provide protection to wildanimals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The main object of enacting this legislation was to stop rapiddec line of India's wild animals and birds.(3) India is o...

Cruickshank and Co. Ltd. Vs. Da Breweries and Distilleries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)245; 1994(29)DRJ196

Arun Kumar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 195/93 and F.A.O. (OS) No.183/93. (2) F.A.O. 195/93 is directed against an order dated 27th July 1992/28th July 1992 passed by Smt. R.S. Dalvi,Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, granting an ad interim injunction in favor of M/s Bda Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BDA) and against M/s Cruickshank & Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to C&C;) restraining C&C; from in any manner directly or indirectly using in relation to any Indian made Foreign Liquors the trade marks and/or labels mentioned in Anxs to the Deed of Assignment,Exhibit 'A' or any other mark or marks or labels deceptively similar thereto. (3) Fao (OS) 183/93 arises from an order dated 25th January 1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the suit filed by C&C; against Bda & others refusing to grant any ad interim order in favor of C&C.; (4) Both cases revolve around the Deed of Assignment dated 26th February 1991 executed b...

O.P. Bishoni Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ338

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) The petitioner questions his dismissal order in pursuance of Court Martial proceedings. (2) The petitioner joined the Border Security Force as direct entry Sub-Inspector in December 1987. He completed his basic training and thereafter he was posted on Bengal border for undertaking practical training. This was in December, 1988. According to the petitioner in February, 1989 he was sent to border outpost for doing practical training under the guidance of the Naik Sheo Prasad. Within 2 days of his reaching this post petitioner apprehended a Bangladesh national by name - Nurul Islam who was attempting to crossover to India. The said Bangladesh national was brought to the post in the presence of other Border Security Force Personnel and local villagers and he was physically searched, According to the petitioner nothing was found. However, the said foreigner was pushed back by the petitioner at the instance of Naik Sheo Prasad (P.W. 6). The allegation against the...

Goel S. Pal and Smt. Shanti Rani Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This order will dispose of Appeal Numbers A-276 and A-292 of 1993 which arise out of the same order of the District Forum dated 12.5.93. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant produced a Will before the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi for registration of the same, on 24.7.87. The Sub-Registrar prima-facie was of the view that the document was not a Will but a Sale-Deed. Consequently he impounded and sent the same to the Collector of Stamps for assessment of the stamp duty plus transfer charges, on 14.8.87. The Collector summoned the complainant many times, but inspite of putting his appearance before the Collector, he did not make the assessment of the stamp duty upto 6.8.93. The complainant filed the present complaint on 6.9.91 claiming damages against the opposite party for deficiency in service. 3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum held that the opposite party did not give any plausible explanation for del...