Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments

Vinay Kumar Vs. Steel Authority of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)814; 1995(34)DRJ595

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the decision of the respondents cancelling the notice inviting tender for a handling contract at Kalamboli Stockyard at Bombay, and in re-inviting bids from tenderers in pursuance of a fresh tender notice. On 14.3.1995 the respondent No.3 issued an advertisement inviting tenders for handling iron and steel material at the stockyard of respondent No.1, Central Marketing Organisation at Kalamboli situated at Bombay. In pursuance of the aforesaid invitation to tender the petitioner submitted his tender. Similarly several others also submitted their tenders. The tenders were evaluated in 2 parts namely - technical evaluation about the experience, ownership of equipments etc. as prescribed in the tender document and price bids.(2) On 11.5.1995 the Tender Committee constituted by the respondents evaluated the technical bids. During the aforesaid process out of the total number of 9 tender...

Bina Gupta Vs. R.K. Kohli

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)782; 60(1995)DLT49; 1995(34)DRJ460

Arun Kumar, J.(1) On 12th November 1996 Shri R.L.Kohli, the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground contained in clause (e) to the proviso to Sub- section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the present petitioner from the portion in her tenancy on the first floor of property No.A-5, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi. The premises was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.3000.00 vide agreement EX.AW 1/2 dated 21/8/1984. As per the case of the respondent landlord he is the owner of property No. A-5, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi. The property was constructed, during the period 1971 to 1973. The entire ground floor of the property consists of a front portion having two bed rooms, one pooja cum study room, one drawing-cum-dining room with a court-yard besides toilet/bath and kitchen which is in occupation of the respondent/landlord. The back portion of ...

Manish Agarwal and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT615

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail is moved on behalf of Manish Aggarwal, the husband of the complainant; Inder Sain Aggarwal, father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Krishna Aggarwal, mother-in-law of the complainant and Ashish Aggarwal, a minor brother-in-law of the complainant aged about 15 years. The offences alleged are under Sections 498-A/406/341PC.(2) The undisputed facts, as have emerged from the contents of the petition, oral arguments and documents shown, appear to be that the petitioner No. I married the complainant on 20.5.94; that from 21.2.95 the complainant is staying with her parents; that the petitioner No. I filed a suit for divorce on 25.3.95 in which die respondent-complainant moved a petition for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 3.5.95 and that the Fir in question i.e. No. 182/95 was registered at the police station on 3.6.95.(3) The petitioners moved before the Sessions Judge for g...

O.P. Soni Vs. Om Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)721; 60(1995)DLT30; 1995(35)DRJ56

Arun Kumar, J.(1) This is tenant's petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the eviction order passed against him by the Addl. Rent Controller. The respondents landlords had instituted an eviction petition against the petitioner herein in the year 1984 under clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act which was ultimately allowed by the Addl. Rent Controller vide the impugned judgment dated 9th March 1994 (2) The necessary facts are that the property in suit was purchased by the respondents vide registered sale deed dated 27th February 1979. The father of the respondents, namely, Dr.Harikishan Dass Nanda retired from Govt. service as A.D.M.O., Central Hospital, Northern Railway in the year 1976. Until his retirement he had a government bungalow provided to him as part of his service by the Govt. He was residing in the said bungalow Along with his family consisting of himself, his wife, four so...

S.T.i. Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)LC144Tri(Delhi)

1. The captioned two Appeals are directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held as under: "7. The goods under question are manufactured as per A.S.T. standards which stipulates that when a length of tubing is washed internally with redistilled chloroform or redistilled I.I.I. trichlorethane, the residue remaining upon evaporation of the solvent shall not exceed 1.25 x l0g = 4/in (0.94 m ) of internal surface. It further says that to maintain this level of cleanliness in shipping, handling and storage the purchaser may request that the manufacturer seal the tube ends with caps and closures. From this it can be inferred that sealing of tubes is not necessary condition for the marketability of the product as the word used is 'may' this means that certain buyers may insist on affixing the caps and other may purchase without the same. I agree with the view of the learned Assistant Collector that caps/rubber plugs cannot be treated as pa...

M/S. Chaudhary Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)870

S. K. Mahajan, J. 1. Under contract No. 40 (1977-78) old-New No. 5/1978-79, awarded by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, certain disputes had arisen during its execution and the same were accordingly referred to the arbitration of respondent No. 2 in terms of the arbitration agreement as contained in the contract. The arbitrator after entering upon reference and hearing the parties made and published his award on 25th October, 1985. On the said award having been filed in court, notice was issued to the parties and respondent No. 1 has filed objection to the same. 2. In short, the objections are that the arbitrator has not given a speaking award as stipulated in terms of the reference nor the award is supported by any evidence on record. It is also alleged that the arbitrator has allowed various claims of the petitioner company and awarded amount there under without any material on record nor it had been shown by the petitioner company that it had suffered any loss and thereforee, acc...

R.N. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, J: 1. Agra Institute of Technology and Dr. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society applied for two telephones under the Non-OYT Spl. Category on 18.8.93 by depositing Rs. 3,000/- each as registration charges. The telephones were not installed and ultimately a letter dated 15.4.94 was received informing the applicants that their case was not covered under the Non-OYT Spl. Category according to the rules and the registrants could change the registration to Non-OYT Genl. Category or apply for refund of the registration fee. R.N. Gupta, President of the two above named Societies filed the present complaint with the averments that he was 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Dr. Act. He was entitled to be given telephone connections under the Non-OYT Spl. Category. He had produced Exemption Certificate granted by the Income-tax Authorities. The complainant has claimed damages amounting to Rs. 11,20,000/- as per following details:1"1.Transport charges incurre...

Orissa Plastics Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT491TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Orissa Plastics, being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 15-3-1989, passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of plastic polythene bags (hereinafter referred to as the 'said bags'). It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 24-11-1982 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Balasore (answerable to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cuttack) that during the period 1980-1981 and 1981-82 (upto 12/81), they cleared the said bags classifiable under the then Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Tariff'), without payment of central excise duty and without a valid gate pass in form GP1. The show cause notice was made answerable to the Assistant Collector of C.E., Cuttack. The central excise duty evaded was calculated as Rs. 5,25,943.89. In view of the amendment to Section 11A(1) of th...

Unitron Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT298TriDel

1. These two appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the rejection of the refund claim of the appellant.2. There was no one for the appellant nor a request for adjournment.Therefore, after hearing Shri K.K. Datta, JDR, the appeals are being decided on the basis of the submissions in the memorandum of appeal.3. The appellant has filed a claim for refund of customs duty paid on two consignments of Integrated circuits and transistors on the ground that the package which was supposed to contain these goods was empty.The Assistant Collector has rejected the claim on the ground that the carrier had not taken responsibility for the loss. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) held that Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 would not apply, because there is no evidence to show that the loss was "final". He says that it cannot be said that the goods have been lost, because there is no customs examination report or a survey report. I am not able to un...

Upper India Steel Mfg. and Engg. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT571TriDel

1. M/s. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Limited have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 400/CE/CHD/91, dated 14-3-1991 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby she had rejected the appeal filed by the appellants against the order-in-original dated 12-11-1987 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana Division disallowing transfer of credit amounting to Rs. 2,77,353.84 from their R.G. 23 Pt. II account, not accepting their plea that since such transfer had already been allowed the same could not be redecided. She had stated in her order that the Assistant Collector had rightly observed that though the appellants had argued that they had a balance of Rs. 47,014.95 out of the amount of Rs. 2,77,353.84 and not of the amount related to inputs received after 1-3-1986, they had not been able to substantiate as to how much amount was utilised after payment of duty out of the balance said to be available as on 1-3-19...