Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments

Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. the Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant purchased 1990 Model Tata Truck and got it registered on 12.2.90. Half body was got made. It was financed by Bank of Baroda to the extent of Rs. 2,62,508/ -. It was insured for the period 7.2.91 to 6.2.92. The Complainant took out the Policy No. 6305111 from the Opposite Party for Rs. 8,50,000/-. The truck was stolen on the night between 5/6.11.91. FIR 282 u/Sec. 379 was registered at Police Station, Baghpat. The truck could not be traced. Untraced report was submitted by the police on 27.2.92. The Opposite Party having failed to settle the claim to the satisfaction of the complainant, this complaint was filed on 1.12.92. The complainant claims: (i) Actual price of the truck, as distinguished from its market value on the date of theft. (ii) Interest on the loan taken from Bank of Baroda as per following break up:Value of truck:Rs. 3,50,000.00Interest penalty payable to Bank:Rs. 1,50,000.00Fo...

Manjeet Singh Bawa Vs. Fateh Bahadur Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant sold a Kirloskar Engine and Pumpset to the respondent for Rs. 8,650/-. The Engine and Pumpset were found to be re-conditioned. When the complainant asked for refund of the amount, the appellant offered to refund the money. The complainant, however, felt that he had been taken for a ride and approached the District Forum-I. 2. The plea of the O.P., appellant before us, was that what was sold was a re-conditioned engine and not a new one. It was also highlighted that offer of refund of the money had been made without any delay. After hearing both the parties the D.F. allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. to refund Rs. 3,650/- and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- besides Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation on the complainant returning the engine to the O.P. Aggrieved by the order the O.P. has preferred this appeal. 3. We notice two important features in this case namely, (i) in the cash memo the engine was not described as re-conditioned imply...

Ashok Gupta Vs. Ram Paper Mills Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant applied for 500 equity shares of the respondent-Company vide application dated 22.4.92 alongwith cheque for Rs. 2,500/-. The complainant received information about non-allotment but failed to receive the refund of Rs. 2,500/-. He filed a complaint with D.F.-II after notice. The plea of the O.P. before D.F. was that refund order dated 3.7.92 had been sent at the correct address and the same had been encashed under signature of Ashok Kumar Gupta. The learned D.F. held that there was no deficiency in service and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant filed this appeal. 2. Mr. A.N. Gupta, Authorised Agent was asked whether the complainant could be considered a consumer in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Dass, II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC). Mr. Gupta submitted : (i) This ground was not taken by D.F., implying that ...

Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. D.L.F. Universal Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Only a few facts need to be stated as we propose to dispose of this complaint at the threshold on the ground of limitation. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale with the O.P. vide Annexure I dated 10.6.87. Letter earmarking plot No.13 on road S-13 and calling upon the complainant to pay the balance price, development charges etc. was issued on 5.5.89. The complainant paid the amount. A registered sale deed was executed by the opposite party on 22.12.89. The complainant visited the site and found, (a) that there was no approach road to the plot, and (b) the plot was surrounded by ditches. The O.P. kept promising to do the needful in respect of both these matters but failed to do so. The present complaint was filed on 5.5.95. The complainant claims compensation amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs largely on ground of escalation in cost of construction and for being duped into the bargain. 2. The contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hemant Plastics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT725TriDel

1. This is a revenue appeal directed against the order dated 22-1-1987 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The Ld. Collector in the impugned order has held relying on the authorities cited before him that polyethylene and polyproplyene films and sheets manufactured by them, fall under T.I. 15A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and are wholly exempted from payment of C.E. Duty from 23-10-1982 onwards under the Notification No. 231/82, dated 23-10-1982. He has also held that Govt. of India by Notification No. 208/84, dated 16-10-1984 has waived the recovery of duty on such films and sheets all sorts of a thickness not exceeding 0.25 mm, cleared during the period from 25-11-1978 to 22-10-1982. He has also held that part demand for Rs. 1,90,400.82 for the period from 1-3-1982 to 31-7-1982 demanded by show cause notice dated 23-11-1982 is also hit by time bar for a part period from 25-5-1982 to 31-7-1982. Therefore, the ld. Collector has modified the demand to this extent. The...

Dak Alloys Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT243TriDel

1. This application for condonation is dated 19-09-1985. Due to patent laches of the Registry, this application has come up in 1995. This application should have been disposed of in the year 1995 itself. Be that as it may, the application is required to be heard and disposed of before the Appeal is heard. The applicant states and explains the delay of 9 days, in fact, the delay to be explained would be only of 6 days as on 16-9-1985, he had posted the appeal papers. The explanation given is that one of the Partners had fallen sick and was under treatment and the other Partner had gone to South India on Sales Tour and returned only on 14th Sept., 1985 and immediately the appeal was drafted and posted on 16-9-1985. The Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed this application on the ground that the Medical Certificate requires to be outright rejected, as the Doctor has attested the signature without the said person to whom he was attesting, having signed the application. Ld.Advocate submitted that t...

Be-delft Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT534TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar (East), Bombay.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are a joint venture company between Bharat Electronics Ltd., a public undertaking and M/s. Delft Instruments of Netherland. They obtained the approval of the concerned Board for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit (E.O.U). They were also issued an industrial licence for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit for the manufacture of 'Image Intensifier Tubes' and Tower Supply Units' in pursuance of the approval granted to them for setting up 100% E.O.U. for the manufacture of the said goods. They imported 150 Nos. (Bare Intensifier Tubes) against Bill of Entry No. 2024, dated 7-4-1992 from Netherland and claimed clearance of the goods free of duty in terms of Notification No.13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981. On examination of the goods the Customs authorities formed an opinion that the import...

Amar Singh Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)54ITD375(Delhi)

1. These are assessee's appeals against the common order dated 31-12-1991 passed by the C1T(A), Agra relating to assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76.2. The facts leading to the present appeals are briefly stated as follows : M/s. Sunheri Lal Bhagwati Prasad (SLBP for short) was a firm of two partners - S/Shri Sunheri Lal and Bhagwati Prasad each having 50 per cent share. The firm did wholesale commission business in vegetables, potatoes at Sabzi Mandi, Agra. They are the sons of Shri Amar Singh by his first wife. It appears that Shri Amar Singh after the death of his first wife married second time.3. Shri Amar Singh did separate but similar business at the same Sabzi Mandi Agra as a partner of a separate firm M/s. Vishwa Nath Amar Singh.The above two firms have two separate business premises though both of them were situated in the same Bazar.4. On 3-10-1974, survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act was conducted by the Income-tax Inspectors both on the business premises of M/...

Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Shakti Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(2)ARBLR100(Delhi); 1995(33)DRJ581

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In this suit the plaintiff is seeking to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly dealing in edible oils including Mustard oil, oil cakes and other allied and cognate goods under the trade mark 'TAJ Mahal label', or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff trade mark Taj Mahal label pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. (2) The case set out is that the plaintiff, is the proprietor from 17.1.1983 of the registered trade mark 'TAJ Mahal lable' in respect of edible oils and oils. Mustard oil in class 29 for sale in the States of Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. That the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing oil cakes and is selling the same under the trade mark 'TAJ Mahal label' and that the defendant is not the proprietor of the said trade mark yet is selling the goods in Delhi and other parts ...

Banara Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT142TriDel

1. This is an application for stay of pre-deposit of Rs. 62,022.61 demanded by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Along with the stay application, an application has also been filed to refund this amount which he says has been deposited in the PLA account in response to coercive methods of the Department.2. Shri A.S. Shishodia, Advocate says that the reason for demand of duty was that the authorities had held the applicant was not entitled to take deemed Modvat credit on non-ferrous metal in various forms purchased from the market. The reason advanced was that the inputs were clearly recognisable as non-duty paid. He says that the order did not disclose that there has been a specific finding that goods were non-duty paid and stated that in the similar circumstances, this Tribunal has granted stay.3. Shri B.D. Bhagat, DR says that there is no evidence that the amount has been paid by the applicant as in response to coercive measures and therefore, the stay application is infruc...