Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments

Mateshwar Prasad Vs. D.D.A. Through Chairman

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was registered under Self Financing Scheme (SFS) for allotment of a flat. He was issued allotment-cum-demand letter by the DDA and asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 26,984/-, on 4.1.88. The balance amount was deposited by him on 2.2.88. It is alleged, that he completed all the formalities within the prescribed period, however, the possession letter was issued to him on 24.2.89 and the possession of the flat was given to him on 17.3.90. Consequently he has prayed that he may be allowed the interest on the amount and granted damages for the mental harassment. 2. It is not necessary to dilate upon this matter as a similar case came up before the National Commission in Lucknow Development Authority v. Roop Kishore Tandon, II (1992) CPJ 503 (NC). 3. The facts of that case were identical with those of the present case. The plea of the DD A in that case was that the dispute arose between the DDA and the contractor...

Collr. of C. Excise Vs. Delhi Kanodia TIn and Drum Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT578TriDel

1. The Collector of Central Excise has filed this appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held: "I have carefully considered the oral/written submissions made by appellants. It is observed that the main issue for settlement is whether the appellants can avail full exemption of Rs. 15 lakh in respect of sub-heading as provided under Notification No. 175/86 and also can avail modvat facilities under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of other item falling under another sub-heading simultaneously. On the issue involved in this case, the citation in favour is Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue). Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, vide their circular No. 38/88 (F. No. 261/76/11/87-CX. 8, dated 8-8-1988 have clarified that as long as it can be proved through reasonable accounting system that credit in respect of only those inputs has allowed which are used in the final products chargeable...

Ecko Cables (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT290TriDel

1. The eligibility of copper wire bars and copper wire rods received by the appellants for the manufac-:ure of their final products, electric wires and cables to the benefit of modvat credit during the period 4-5-1988 to 1-6-1988 on the basis of the certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd., indicating payment of duty @ Rs. 6,200/-r'MT, is the issue that arises for determination in this appeal. The benefit has been denied on the ground that these certificates are not duty paying docu-nents within the meaning of Rule 57G and, therefore, modvat to the extent of Rs. 3,300/- PMT as per CBEC order No. 342/1/88-TRU, dated 20-5-1988 alone was allowed and the appellants were called upon to deposit the balance demand of differential duty of Rs. 59,168.38. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate and Shri V.K.Sharma, learned SDR.3. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessees by Order No. A/927-930/93-NRB, dated 17-11-1993 in the case of ...

Daulat Rai and Sons Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(2)ARBLR346(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT657; (1994)107PLR44

Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner for making the award a rule of the Court. Respondent-Union of India filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, challenging the award and praying that the award made and published by Arbitrator on 12/12/1990be set aside.(2) MR.ASHOK Bhasin learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the Arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and there are errors which are apparent on the record. He has also argued that in terms of Clause 25 of the arbitration agreement where the award is more than Rs. 50,000.00, the Arbitrator has to give reasons. Mr. Bhasin has contended that the award is without any reason.(3) Claim No. 1 is a claim of contractor for a sum of Rs. 2,86,000.00. The Arbitrator has allowed Rs. 1,31,000.00 out of the said claim. Mr.Bhasin has drawn my attention to the heading of claim No. 1 in the award which shows that thecontractor has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,20,000.0...

Raj Rani JaIn Etc. Vs. Harish Chand Singia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)6; II(1994)DMC354; 1994(29)DRJ369; (1994)108PLR22

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of C.M.(M) 9/94 (Smt.Raj Rani Jain v. Shri Harish Chand Singia and others), C.R.No. 467/93 (Smt. Raj Rani Jain v. Shri Harish Chand Singia and another) and C.R.No. 470/93 (Smt. Sandhya Bansal v. Shri Harish Chand Singia and another). The facts arising in all the petitions are common and relate to the custody of minor female child, by the name of Swati.(2) The petitioner Smt. Sandhya Bansal (in C.R.No.470/93) was married to late Shri Vipin Singia son of respondents Shri Harish Chand Singia and Smt. Prem Lata on February 10, 1983 and a female child was born to them on February 12, 1984. The said Vipin Singia died on August 28, 1987. A petition under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act and an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was moved by Smt. Sandhya Singia (now known as Sandhya Bansal) in the court of District Judge, Delhi, in Guardianship Case No. 123 of 1988. The parties to the petition bein...

Ranjit Singh Thapar Vs. Simran Thapar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)857; II(1994)DMC158; 1994(30)DRJ406

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated November 2, 1993, passed by Shri J.D.Kapoor, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in an application moved by the respondent under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent had claimed the custody of the minor female child 'Mehr'.(2) The brief facts, as cited in the impugned judgment, are that the petitioner was married to the respondent in the year 1979. They could not be get any child and adopted one female child from Orphanage of Missionaries of Charity in the year 1987, when the medical investigations indicated the impossibility of the birth of the child. The child had the love and care of both the parents till October, 1991, when they started living separately. The petitioner continued to look after the child in the absence of the respondent and the child has been studying in Modern School, Delhi. It has been contended by the petitioner that the respondent has been neglecting the child i...

Vijaya C. Gursahaney Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)770; 1994(29)DRJ457; 1994RLR367

D.F. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioner, who says that lease hold rights of plot be a ring No.D-3,Community Centre,Naraina,NewDelhi, devolved upon her under a Will executed by its lessee, challenges the demand raised by respondent-Delhi Development Authority (for short 'the DDA') towards 50% unearned increase in the value of the land four the purpose of transferring leasehold rights in her favor, and petitioner further seeks a direction that the plot be transferred in her name without payment of any unearned increase, and that necessary mutation be made in the records of the D.D.A. In the alternative,it is prayed that in case the petitioner is liable to pay 50% unearned in crease, it should be on the basis of the value or the rate of land prevalent on 8 May 1980 when the petitioner applied for transfer of the leasehold rights of the plot in her favor. (2) There are two respondents. First respondent is the D.D.A., a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the second respo...

M. Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)782; [1995]82CompCas252(Delhi); 1994(30)DRJ251; ILR1995Delhi283; 1994LabIC2288; (1995)IILLJ933Del; 1994RLR408

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) We are reminded of the memorable words of lord Atkin in his dissenting judgment in L. Liversidge v. Anderson and another , 1941(3) All ER 338 : ' In England amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace.' However, when a huge security seam involving thousands of crores of rupees surfaced, it would appear law became different for the petitioner who faced the ignominy of his services having been terminated in violation of law of the land.(2) The petitioner, who was at the relevant time Executive Director (whole-time Working Director) of the Bank of Maharashtra and Was also looking after the day to-day affairs of the bank until the appointment of regular Chairman and Managing Director or under further orders of the Central Government, was visited with order of termination dated 9 July 1993 issued by the Central Government in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (I A) of clause 8 of t...

Jagir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(60)LC452(Delhi)

ORDERV.B. Bansal, J.1. On 3.10.1989, on the basis of prior information, truck No. DIL-4997 along with its occupant Veer Singh alias Veeru was intercepted by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at I.B.P. Petrol Pump at Libaspur, New Delhi. The said truck was escorted to the Office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and was rummaged in the presence of two independent witnesses, resulting in the recovery of 200 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each bearing foreign markings from the secret cavity in the back side the driver's cabin of the said truck. The gold as also the truck were seized by the Custom Officer under the provisions of Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On 3.10.1989, Veer Singh was examined and his statement under Section 108 of the Act was recorded, in which he had inter-alia stated that he was working as a cleaner of Truck No. DIL 4997 and that Jagir Singh was the driver of the truck and after he worked for a week with him (Jagir Sin...

Simplex Castings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT585TriDel

1. M/s. Simplex Castings Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had held, "I have gone through the facts of order-in-original, Memos of appeal and the submissions made by the appellants at the time of hearing. I find that adjudicating authority has passed a fair and sustainable order. Taking into account the totality of the facts I reduce the personal penalty to Rs. 2,000/- only. The impugned order is otherwise upheld." The order-in-original was passed by the Dy. Collector who had held, "I hold that the allegations levelled in the show cause notice are correct. The party had removed the goods i.e. 216.889 MT without payment of duty in contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.1 therefore order that the duty payable on these goods amounting to Rs. 83,153.66 shall be paid forthwith. I also confiscate 17.881 MT of M.S.Ingots which have not been accounte...