Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

Dr. Navneet Arora Vs. Chowdhry Chaman Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Notice issued to the respondent under Regd. cover has not been received back undelivered. Service is presumed, the respondent having failed to appear is proceeded ex-parte. 2. We have heard Mr. D.S. Bedi Counsel for the appellant. The appellants complaint was fixed for hearing before District Forum I on 5.1.95. The complainant have failed to appear, the complaint was dismissed for default. The District Forum is stated to have observed that it has no power to restore a complaint dismissed for default. In fact, in the presence of Mr. D.S. Bedi Counsel for the appellant, order was announced in another application to the above effect. Certified copy of the order was received on 27.3.95 and the present appeal filed before this Commission on 25.4,95. The appeal has thus been filed within 30 days and the same is within limitation. The dismissal order appears to have been passed without the O.P. being present. Normally, even the Civil Courts which are bound by the ...

O.N.G.C. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT117TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara whereby he has confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that manufactured and cleared a quantity of lean gas to M/s Kribhco Fertilizers.2. We have heard the submissions made by Shri Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and those of Shri Bhansali, SDR for the Collector. We, however, do not propose to go into the merits of the issue as in our opinion the appeal could be disposed of on the issue of limitation.3. The show cause notice dated 25-1-1991 demanding duty was issued for clearances during the period from 8-1-1988 to 29-2-1988. The extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was invoked on the ground that the appellant had suppressed the fact of manufacture and clearance without payment of duty with the deliberate attempt to evade duty. The notice alleges that after it was detected, the company came forward to pay duty. It is true, as ar...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aerolex Hose Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC124Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue in these two appeals is the classification of hose assemblies tinder the Central Excise Tariff.2. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Bangalore manufacture inter alia, excavators and their parts. Among these are hydraulic hose assemblies.These assemblies are made out of vulcanised rubber hose, sometimes reinforced with metal braiding- The rubber is cut to size and metal fittings are added at either [end] so that it can be securely fastened to the parts of the excavators where it is required. The function of the hose pipe assemblies is to convey hydraulic fluid to different parts of an excavator to enable it to carry out the functions for which it is designed. The company had claimed the classification of hose assemblies manufactured by [them] under Heading 84.31 as parts of excavators. The Central Excise department was, however, of the view that goods should be classified under Heading 4009.92 and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise accordingly passed an adjudication ord...

C.C.E. Vs. Ambica Stone Crushers and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT555TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 31-8-1987.2. Learned D.R. stated that the respondents manufacture regulated clinker binder by crushing clinker with lime. This mixture has similar end-use as cement. No. intimation regarding its manufacture was given by the respondents to the department. On investigation the product was found to conform to cement classifiable under T.I. 23 of C.E.T.3. The main contention of the respondents before the lower authorities has been that their product was not cement as they did not use gypsum in its manufacture.4. However, it was department's contention that use of gypsum was not necessary or essential for producing cement.5. The cement itself is of various types including quick setting type, rapid hardening type, water-proof type etc. as evident from tariff itself which during the relevant time read as follows :- (1) Grey portland cement (including ordinary portland...

Mohd. Usman @ Haji Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ2647; 59(1995)DLT306; 1996(36)DRJ131

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) By this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought the relief of issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing notice bearing No.584/R- Court DCP/C dated 18.2:92 issued by the respondent No.3, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Distt., Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The impugned notice, Annexure P- 3, is under Section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (for short the 'Act') requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. The date of receiving Explanationn against the notice was fixed as 20.2.1992. The petitioner was in judicial custody when the notice was served on him and on the date fixed i.e. 20.2.1992 he was produced before the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District in jail custody. This writ petition was filed on 21.2.1992, rule was issued on 8.5.92 and a...

Jagmohan Singh Wadhera Vs. K.M. Bhatnagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)525; 59(1995)DLT707; 1995(34)DRJ279; 1995RLR527

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner filed the present eviction petition on the ground contained in clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the respondent tot his eviction from premises No.3/15,Vikram Vihar, lajpat Nagar-IV, New- Delhi. The petitioner purchased the property vide a duly registered sale deed dated 15/12/1980. The petitioner is residing on the first floor of the premises while the respondent tenant occupies the ground floor. The petitioner filed a site plan of the tenancy premises which is Ex.AW 3/3. Though the respondent disputed the site plan yet the respondent has admitted in the written statement that the tenancy premises consists of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath and W.C. Along with front and back courtyards. The accommodation available with the petitioner landlord on the first floor of the property is almost similar consisting of two rooms and kitchen, bath, W.C. There are t...

Ramesh and Others Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ309

P.K. Bahri, J. 1. Appellants-Ramesh, his mother Smt. Ganga Devi and his married sister Smt. Santosh Kumari have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated January 28, 1991 and vide subsequent order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated January 29, 1991, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have come up in appeal challenging their convictions and sentences. 2. Smt. Krishna since deceased, who was about 24 years at the time of her death, was married to Daya Ram PW2 who is brother of Ramesh-appellant. Smt. Santosh and son of Smt. Ganga Devi appellant No. 2. This marriage took place about eight years prior to the date of the occurrence and there were two small children alive from the wedlock at the time of the occurrence. Smt. Ganga Devi had four sons. This family ...

Smt. Balwinder Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1012Del

Usha Mehra, J.1. The petitioner, Smt. Balwinder Kaur was commissioned in the Military Nursing Services (in short MNS) as Lieutenant on 1st June 1988. She was on probation for a period of two years. During this probation period she got married to one Capt. Y. K. Joseph on 31st December, 1988. Her services were terminated on the 'marriage ground' vide order dated 23rd October, 1989. It is against this termination that the present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order, inter alia, being discriminatory on account of sex prejudice. 2. The respondent in its counter affidavit did not deny the factum of termination of the services of the petitioner on 'marriage ground'. Respondent however, took the plea that since the petitioner got married within two years of her commissioning in the MNS the same was in violation of Clause 'A' of Criteria dated 6th March 1987. The said circular lays down the criteria according to which an Officer who marries using probation period will not be...

Saraf Agencies Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)485; 59(1995)DLT331

S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The award dated 17thMay, 1989,made and published by the Arbitrator in the matter of disputes which had arisen between the parties under an arbitration agreement, was filed in this Court. On notice having been given to the parties, the petitioner filed objections to the said award. Besides other objections, one of the objections taken in the petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act is that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present matter and / '. or make the award a rule of the Court. The submission made is that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator was filed in the High Court of Calcutta. By order dated 8th June, 1988 Calcutta High Court was pleased to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator to be appointed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director of respondent No. 1. In terms of the orders dated 8th June, 1988 passed by Calcutta High Court, the Arbitrator was appointed by a letter dated 13...

J.C. Khosla and anr. Vs. Khosla Medical Institute and Research Society ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)378; 59(1995)DLT280

Devinder Gupta, J.(1) Plaintiff No. 1 is the brother of defendant No. 2 and defendants 3 and 4 are the wife and son respectively of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is not disputed that the society is a non-political, non-profit making and noneectarian society. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are to establish, maintain, control and run Medical Research Centres in various systems of medicine and to render medical aid or relief and for the purpose aforesaid to open, establish, maintain, manage, control and conduct dispensaries, hospitals etc. (2) The suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 92 Civil Procedure Code . claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that the suit property is a public trust property,namely, Khosla Hospital, situated at Shalimar Bagh (West), Delhi, which is run by defendant No. 1 society as a public trust and neither defendant No. 1 nor its Board of Directors including defen...