Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Jaipali Vs. Chairman, L.i.C. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that one Brahm Prakash working as a fitter in the Kelvinator India Ltd. took two insurance policies of Rs. 25,000/- each effective from 28.3.89. He nominated his wife Smt. Jaipali as nominee. The aforesaid insured died on 29.7.90. In the complaint filed by Smt. Jaipali it was stated that her late husband had also secured a third policy No. PN/1891 /611 for Rs. 10,000/- effective from 20.3.89 from the Life Insurance Corporation. It was further stated that while the payment of Rs. 10,000/- had been made by the opposite party under the third policy, the payment under the first two policies had not been made. The complaint was contested. It was pleaded that the insured was guilty of fraudulent suppression of material information. The investigations made in connection with the claim revealed that in July, 88 the insured was operated for cancer of gall bladder. This significant fact was suppressed in the persona...

Nulon India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT88TriDel

1. When the matter was called on 2-7-1996, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that Shri Randhir Singh, Advocate for the appellants had filed an application seeking directions from the Tribunal, stating that the appellants had engaged another Counsel without any intimation to him and without filing any "no objection certificate" from him, and that he was prepared to furnish no objection certificate if substantial outstanding dues were paid to him. The appellants had filed a detailed reply denying that any amount was due to Shri Randir Singh, submit-ting that they had informed him that they had engaged another Counsel to argue the appeal on 27-6-1996 which was the date fixed for hearing of the appeal (and adjourned to 2-7-1996). Shri C.P. Vig, advocate appearing along with Shri Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, Consultant, appeared before the Bench on 2-7-1996 and sought reference of the demand of Shri Randhir Singh for exhor-bitant fees, to the Bar Council.It is in this background that the ...

Man Structurals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT457TriDel

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Transmission Line Tower Material. In the manufacture of their product they claim to use Hydraulic Mobile Crane in respect of which they had claimed credit of duty under Rule 57-Q. The Assistant Collector did not allow such availment of credit on the ground that such facility would be available only for capital goods used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. The stand taken by the Assistant Collector was that the Mobile Crane in question is being used by them only for handling of material and not for producing or processing or finished goods. This order having been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi the present appeal has been filed.2. Shri K.K. Anand learned counsel for the appellant submits that the goods manufactured by them are Transmission Line Towers which are heavy and large in size. While fabricating such towers the use of...

National Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT510TriDel

1. By the ROM application, the applicant has prayed for the fixation of date for hearing of ROM application before the Bench consisting of three Members. Shri N. Singh, the ld. Counsel arguing on the application submitted that the Apex Court in the case of ELPRO International Ltd. reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 406 held that judicial propriety and fairness require that so long as it is possible and feasible, the same Member Bench should constitute the Bench to hear the rectification proceedings as well. The Apex Court further held that it is also prudent and pregmatic and will avoid chaos. The ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case, Appeal No. C/31/89-A was decided by Three Members Bench by its Final Order No. 295/91-A; that when ROM Application No. C/ROM/76/92-A was filed by the appellants for rectification of certain mistakes, this ROM application was heard by a Bench of two Members. He submitted that in view of the Apex Court's rulings, ROM application should have been heard ...

Advert Communications and Another Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Del ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)300; AIR1997Delhi150; 1996(39)DRJ261; ILR1996Delhi743

1. The plaintiff has filed theinstant suit for permanent injunction and the accompanying application for interim relief under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts as asserted in the plaint arenas follows :2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business of outdoor publicity. It displays hoardings within the Union Territory of Delhi and the surrounding areas. The plaintiff for the purpose of its business acquires and takes on rent or license various sites and locations from private parties and also from the defendant Corporation. The plaintiff by letter dated October 10, 1994, applied to the defendant M.C.D. for permission to display advertisement hoardings at sites listed at Seriall Nos. 1 to 3 of Schedule 'A' . to the plaint. Again on August 17, 1995, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for permission to put up fresh hoardings at site listed at Seriall Nos. 4 to 6 of the same schedule. The defendant, however, did not respond to...

Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ311

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose of defendant's application, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), seeking modification of order dated the 14th December, 1992, passed by the learned predecessor of this Court in is 14222/92. (2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff is a Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1913 in the year 1946 and is an existing Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Express Estates, Clubhouse Road, Anna Salai, Madras and a Branch Office at Express Building, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. It is averred that the plaintiff Company is the lessee of plot No. 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi and owns the building, commonly known as Express Building, situated at the above said premises i.e. 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. The defendant, as per the avermen...

R.K. Aneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)185; 63(1996)DLT839; 1996(39)DRJ109

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner tiled the present petition on 1.4-10-1993 under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking inter alias a direction to the Engineer Member of the respondent Delhi Development Authority, to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement and for reference of all the claims and disputes to him. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition contending the same to be barred by limitation. (2) The question that springs up for consideration is whether the starting point of limitation for a Section 20 petition should be reckoned from 28.7.1989, when the petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the agreement and called upon the Engineer Member of the respondent to appoint an arbitrator or from 15.10.1991, when the request for arbitration was declined? (3) The facts are not in dispute and the petition can be disposed of on this pure question of law. (4) Let me notice the undisputed facts in brief. Th...

Bhagwat Dayal Vs. Sunheri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT851; 1996(38)DRJ527

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this application, the applicant/ respondent Nos.1 and 2 arc seeking directions from this Court to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lacs and for withdrawal by them of the amount to be so deposited. (2) The case of the respondents/applicants for the relief sought may be briefly noticed:- The present revision petition had been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11-1-1996 of Sh. V.K. Khanna, Civil Judge, passed in Suit No-810/92 titled 'Sunehri & Another v. Bhagwat Dayal & Others'. The dispute between the parties relates to the performance of 'Puja Sewa' in Kalka Devi Mandir and collection of the offerings made by the worshipers as well as of 'Teh-Bazari' realized from shop keepers, who set up the stalls.(3) The respondent No.1 had filed Suit No-610/92 claiming inter alias a declaration in respect of her share in collection of the offerings. The injunction had also been sought against the petitioner from collecting offerings. The monthly bari ...

Manisha Surana Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)20; AIR1997Delhi111; 64(1996)DLT257; 1996(39)DRJ241

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) RULE. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) The present petition is directed against the respondents to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner against admission card for the Under Graduate Entrance Test, 1996 conducted by respondent No.1 on June 30, 1996 in respect of Admit Card No.038015 and Roll No.l038015 and for direction to respondent No.2 to grant admission to the petitioner to MBBS/BDS Course 1996 in case she is entitled as per merit rank. (3) The petitioner took All India Senior School Certificate Examination 1996 conducted by respondent No.1 and secured 84.6 per cent marks in aggregate. Thereafter on June 30, 1996 she appeared for the entrance examination for admission to the MBBS/BDS Course 1996 in Respondent No.2 University with Admit Card and Roll Number as mentioned above. The petitioner further alleged that the test was objective type and there were 200 questions Seriallly numbered followed by 4 responses, also Seriallly marked. The candidate ...

Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT934; 1996(38)DRJ711

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of three appeals of the three appellants. The appellants were charged and convicted under Sections 364/302/ 120B Ipc, for the murder of Deepak @ Babloo, aged about 10 years. Each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120-B/302 Ipc and ten years' R.I. for the offence under Section 364 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. (2) On 8th January, 1990 Balwant Ram, father of Deepak @ Babloo lodged Fir at police station Adarsh Nagar that his son Babloo aged ten years was missing since 5.30 p.m. on 6th January, 1990 from Azadpur T point. He described the boy as fair complexion, lean built about 3'-6' tall, wearing white shirt red sweater, green pant and white shoes. The boy was a student of fourth class. The missing person report about the boy had been lodged at the police station on 7th January 1990 vide Dd No. 20-A at 7.40 p.m. In the Fir it was recorded that Jagdish and Vasdev having timber shops near t...