Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments

Central Bank of India Vs. Naresh Electric Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT620; (1995)111PLR7

M.K. Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 14.10.1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 95/1988. By the aforesaid judgment and order the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 29,909.95 was dismissed on the ground that the suit was not filed by a duly authorised and competent person.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 29,909.25 which constituted a term loan of Rs.25,000/- taken by defendants 1 & 2 from the plaintiff bank. The defendants No. 3 & 4 stood guarantors for repayment of the loan by executing a letter of guarantee. The defendants however, failed in their commitment and failed to pay the amount of Installments and accordingly the defendants are said to be indebted to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.29,909.25 which included interest up to 25.5.1988.3. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 filed their written statement whereas the defendant No. 4 did not contest the suit and as against him the suit w...

Anant Raj Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Lt ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order would dispose of two preliminary objections. Brief material facts of the case are that M/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, instituted the present complaint with the averments that the complainant purchased one Tata Sierra car manufactured by opposite party No. 1 through its dealer opposite party No. 2 on 23.10.92 for a sum of Rs. 4,07,530/-. Within a day or two of its purchase, car started giving trouble. In that its engine grtheated and ultimately the car stopped working towards the end of October, 92 itself. It was repeatedly taken for repairs but the problem persisted and the car could not be set-right. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite parties under Registered A.D. cover on 23.12.92 requesting the OP to replace the car immediately and to compensate the complainant by payment of the amount spent on repair of the car. The case of the complainant was that the car has been purchased by th...

Ajay Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh Aggarwal and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal, respondent No. 1, who was complainant before the District Forum, entered into an agreement to purchase office space in a commercial complex known as Anupam Commercial Complex at Paschim Vihar Community Centre, New Delhi with the appellant. The amount of Rs. 94,940.40 was to be paid in four instalments and on the payment of the last instalment possession of the premises was to be delivered on 10.12.91. In fact possession was delivered to respondent No. 1 on 23.10.92. The premises did not have necessary amenities including electric connection, water supply and sewerage facilities. The complainant instituted a complaint before the District Forum on 12.1.93 claiming damages @ Rs. 2,000/- p.m. besides interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount invested by her namely Rs. 94,000/- from the date she was delivered possession (23.10.92) till the aforesaid amenities were provided, Rs. 10,000/- as compensati...

Masters Medical Equipment Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC315Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-11-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants imported a consignment of "Fidelity cassettes" against Bill of Entry No. 264191, dated 13-9-1994. The goods were described by the importers as "Fidelity Photographic Cut Film Holder Cassettes for Multi-format Camera for Recording Ultrasound and CT Images." The cassettes in question were declared by the importers as classifiable under Heading 90.33 of the Customs Tariff and assessable at 'Nil' duty as parts of medical equipment in terms of Notification No. 123/94. By his order dated 28-9-1994 the Assistant Collector held that "Fidelity Cassette" in question was not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 123/94 since it was only an accessory and not a component part of C.T.Scan/Ultra sound camera. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the Asstt. Collector's...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sejisha Imports and Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT488TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14-9-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein imported a consignment describing in the Bill of Entry as Magnetic Buttons (leather goods) during 1992 at the Bombay Custom House. The goods were classified under Heading 9606.22 CTA extending exemption under the Notification No. 267/89. This heading of 9606.22 reads as buttons, press-fasteners, snap-fasteners and press-studs, button moulds and other parts of these articles; button blanks. The sub-heading 9606.22 covers such articles of base metals not covered with textile material. Subsequently to the clearance of the goods it appeared to the Custom House that the goods were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8309.90. Heading 8309.00 at the relevant time covered Clasps, frames with clasps, buckles, buckle clasps, hooks, eye, eyelets. Therefore, less charge demand was issued for Rs. 7,542/- on the revised classifica...

N.G. Pandey Vs. Unitech Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)137; 59(1995)DLT22

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present judgment will dispose of two appeals, Rsa 13/91 and Rsa 14/91. The same have arisen from the judgment of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi dated 28th January, 1991. The Learned Judge accepted the appeal of respondent-defendant and dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff which had been filed against the judgment of Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi in Suit No. 118/88.The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with the respondent-company for the post of Senior Supervisor on 25th June, 1984 at a basic salary of Rs. 1100.00 p.m.The appellant worked at various places in India such as Jabalpur, Dadri,Chandipur,Vishakhapatnam etc.He was drawing a basic salary of Rs. 1220 .00 which worked out to total amount of Rs. 2003.00 p.m. Certain differences arose between the appellant and the respondent-Company issued show cause notice and a chargesheet in this regard on 1st April, 1988. The services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 12th Apri...

Leader Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT453TriDel

1. When this application was called, Shri J.S. Dhillon, Legal officer of the appellant's firm says that he had written three letters dated 18-6-1994, 15-12-1994 and 21-2-1995 asking for return of the certificates evidencing payment of duty on nickel and tin issued by MMTC, Ludhiana and that he has still not received the certificates. He says that certificate is to be submitted before the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise to whom the matter has been remanded.2. As pointed out by the DR, I am extremely doubtful that whether Misc.application would lie and therefore, dismiss it. However, Registry is directed to return the documents to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The matter may, thereafter be placed before the Vice President to consider whether directions may be issued to registry in order to avoid this type of unnecessary work....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1995]215ITR409(Delhi)

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and to refer to this court for its opinion the following questions, relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that commission payment of Rs. 2,38,594 qualifies for weighted deduction under section 35B (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was competent for the Tribunal to hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have entertained the question of relief under section 35(2B) when no claim was made before the Assessing Officer and where no material was filed during the assessment proceedings and to direct the Assessing Officer to allow necessary relief ?' 2. We have heard Mr. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, as...

Mahesh Bansal Vs. Executive Engineer (Fcd. 1)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ249

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Shri Mahesh Bansal entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer (FCD.1) regarding the work of 'construction of puce drain in between R.D.1200 to R.M.18(X) of Nasirpur Link Drain', An agreement was entered into between the parlies. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause No.25. Disputes arose between the partics. The petitioner asked for the appointment of an Arbitrator pursuance to Clause 25 of the agreement. When the respondent failed to do so, he moved a petition in this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This Court vide order dated 20th Septcmber,1990 directed the respondent to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parlies. Pursuance to the said order, Chief Engineer (I & P), Delhi Administration appointed Shri S.S.K.Bhagat, Chief Engineer (Civil), N.D.M C. as the- sole arbitrator.(2) The said arbitrator has made and published his award dated 12th March,1991. The said award was Filed in the Court by the...

Sujata Rai Vij Vs. Chief Justice and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)24; AIR1996Delhi50; 60(1995)DLT747

S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Sujata Rai Vij, a practicing Advocate of this Court has filed the present petition to restrain the Chamber Allotment Committee and Chief Justice of Delhi High Court from jointly allotting Chamber No-130 to Shri D.N. Sawhney Along with her and to strike down the Rule No. 36 of the Chamber Allotment Committee Rules, 1980. (2) Shri R.M. Tufail, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has been heard at length by us. He contended before us that Rule No. 36 of the Chamber Allottee Committee Rules, 1980 is arbitrary and that the said rule is not implemented honestly and correctly since its insertion and is being used only to harass the petition. (3) In order to consider the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petition it is necessary to mention here that after the construction of the Lawyers' Chambers within the compass of the Delhi High Court, Rules regarding the allotment of the said lawyers chambers were framed in the year 1980 under the title of Delhi High Court...