Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative Vs. Kailash Prakash and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1996)ACC633; 1996IIAD(Delhi)596; 62(1996)DLT605

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In the suit for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants to forthwith hand over the possession of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CE-9077 to the plaintiff and for a decree for Rs. 3 lacs by way of damages and Rs. 38,500.00 for being damages for the wrongful withholding of the aforesaid car by the defendant calculated at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per day with effect from 15th January, 1994 till the actual return of the car and for mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to handover the records, papers, documents, files etc. belonging to and pertaining to the plaintiff society with interest @ 24% per annum both future and pendente lite on the decretal amounts and the costs of the suit, the plaintiff by this application prays for the appointment of the receiver to take charge of the Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CE-9077 which is presently in possession of Shri Kishni Vasandani, Brij Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. (2) The case set out in the plaint...

Uttam Chand Vs. Canara Bank, Paharganj, New Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)291; 63(1996)DLT303; 1996(38)DRJ160; (1996)114PLR13

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is an appeal preferred by Smt.Phool Kumari, widow of one late Uttam Chand Jain, who was sole defendant in a civil suit.(2) On the death of defendant, the counsel appearing for him informed the Court of factum of death as contemplated by Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC. On 18.10.95 it was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the plaintiff that Mr.J.K. Jain, counsel appearing for the deceased defendant was also related to him. On a prayer made by the counsel for the plaintiff, the counsel for the defendant Mr.J.K.Jain was directed to disclose the names of the LRs of the deceased-defendant, so as to enable the plaintiff filing an appropriate application bringing the LRs on record. (3) As Mr.J.K. Jain, counsel for the defendant did not comply with the order, on 17.9.96, the learned Single Judge has once again directed him to comply with the previous order within four weeks. (4) Aggrieved by the above said orders, this appeal has been filed. (5) It is submit...

Karamjit Singh Vs. Mangli Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT44

J.K. Mehra, J.(1) I have heard the parties. The petitioner was served with summons in this case for 10th March, 1992. On that date neither the Presiding Officer, nor any of the parties were present and the following order was passed : 'Present: Learned P.O. is on leave. As per order of Learned P.O. the case is adjourned to 21.5.1992 for F.P. sd/- Reader' (2) The matter thereafter came up on 21st May, 1992 when the Arc was present and the petitioner was represented by his Counsel, but no one appeared for the respondent. Admittedly no notice had been served on the petitioner for 21st May, 1992 and no order was passed by the Court on 10th March, 1992. It is settled law that the Reader of the Court has no authority unless specifically authorised by Presiding Officer to fix the case for any particular purpose except to inform the parties of the next date for proper proceedings. No such authority existed in favor of the Reader in the present case. Notwithstanding this position the Trial Cour...

Lajwanti Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT854

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is filed for : (A)a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ praying for the quashing of Impugned order dated 30th March, 1989 acquiring the property No. 797/VIII, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi u/section 12(1) of the Slum Areas (Improvements & Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as vocative of mandatory provisions of Sections 6A, 9 and 10 of the said Act and of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (b) declaration that Section 15 of the Act is ultra virus of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (c) issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to provide alternative allotment to the petitioner and her legal heirs in accordance with Rule 9 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 and in the alternative to release the property No. 797/ /VIII owned by the petitioner from acquisition.(2) The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1966 the petitioner had pu...

Akhilesh Kumar Verma and Others Vs. M/S. Skipper Builders (P) Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhry, President: 1. This order is being passed in the above mentioned seven cases as common questions arise for consideration. 2. The State Commission passed orders for the recovery of specified amounts against the respondents. No appeal having been filed, the said order became final. The amounts having not been paid, the complainants moved applications u/Section 27 of the C.P. Act. In matters at S1. Nos. 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 the parties came to terms. Under the settlement, the amount to be paid was settled. The payment was to be made by monthly instalments. In pursuance of the settlement various amounts were paid from time to time where after default was committed by the respondents. The applicants urge that the respondents have failed to pay the entire amount in terms of the order of the State Commission/settlement arrived at with the applicants and, therefore, the respondents be convicted and awarded suitable punishment in terms of Section 27. Mr. R. Patnaik, learned Counsel for...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Video Master

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT117TriDel

1. Being aggrieved with the extension of the benefit of Notification No. 102/82, dated [28-2-1982] to the respondents by the Collector (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR appeared on behalf of the appellant.None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice of hearing issued on 26-3-1996. The Bench therefore, in its discretion proceeded to decide the appeal ex parte. Accordingly, heard Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR and perused the record.3. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR submitted that the respondents are the manufacturer of sound and image recording articles falling under Tariff Item 59 of the erstwhile CET. They filed their Classification List No.2/83 effective from 21-10-1983 claiming exemption under Notification No. 102/82, dated 28-2-1982 for recording video tapes and discs said to have been meant for circulation by their sub-distributors on rental basis. However the Asstt. Collector while deciding the C/List rejected the claim ...

Delhi Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Engineer Vs. P ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2556]

ORDER1. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 30th September, 1993. It was an ex parte award. It appears that the petitioner had appeared before the Labour Court and had filed written statement but absented after lastly appearing on 3rd August, 1989. After the award was made the petitioner did not file any application before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award presumably because of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Grindlays Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors. : (1981)ILLJ327SC . According to this decision the Industrial Tribunal becomes functions officio if the application is not moved within 30 days of the publication of the award in the Gazette. In this case it is not disputed that by the time this petition was filed the period of 30 days had expired. This petition was filed in April, 1994. Even in this petition except making vague averments the petitioner has failed to give facts which may amount to sufficient cause ...

Shakil Ahmed Ansari Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)613; 1996CriLJ4345; 63(1996)DLT274; 1996(38)DRJ385

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The petitioner challenges the order of his detention dated May 10, 1995, passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Cofeposa Act'). The facts giving rise to this petition are as under :(2) On January 31, 1995, one Shri Mohd. Shahnawaz was apprehended by the police authorities at Sikar. He was found to be carrying Rs. 8.18 lakhs in Indian currency. On being questioned by the police Mohd. Shahnawaz stated that the said amount belonged to the petitioner and was meant for hawala payments. Same day the said amount was seized under section 38 of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (for short 'the FERA') by Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Jaipur, vide panchnama dated January 31, 1995. Shri Mohd. Shahnawaz in his statement of the same date recorded under section 40 of the Fera gave details 'of the activities and involve...

Prem Chandrika Verma Vs. the General Manager, Desu

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brieftacts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that the appellant, who was complainant before the District Forum-I applied for a domestic electric connection for his house situated in the extended Abadi of Village Karawal. He deposited Rs. 525/- on 29.2.88 and another Rs. 10/- on 2.9.88. He followed up the application but ultimately failed to get the electric connection. The complainant approached District Forum-I. The broad stand of the opposite party was (a) that the complainant failed to complete commercial formalities and (b) that the house in question fell in unelectrified area. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the District Forum who, after inspection of the site, reported that the nearest poll was 45 feet from the house of the complainant. The report was challenged on behalf of the opposite party. The District Forum inspected the site on 12.8.94 in the presence of the complainants husband and Mr. N.D. Sharma, Legal Asstt. and Asstt. Engi...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Novaluxe International (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT195TriDel

1. By the present appeal the Collector has agitated the finding of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that the value has been defined as having same meaning as in Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Since in this case the value has not been defined, the value of the finished product has to include the inputs, tax, octroi etc. to be paid and transportation cost incurred by the appellants.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Melamine faced prelaminated particle boards. For manufacture of this item they procure from the market particle board as raw material. Under Notification No. 161/85, dated 16-7-1985, Govt. of India exempted melamine faced prelaminated particle boards from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon under the said Act as is equivalent to the duty of excise leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with reference to that part of the value thereof which represents the value of the pl...