Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

O.P. Bhalla Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)603; 65(1997)DLT895

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily to take benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh, : (1994)ILLJ318SC . In this judgment, the Supreme Court while interpreting note (5 to Fundamental Rights 56, governing the correction of the date of birth in service record, has interpreted that within 5 years from the date of this notification, (30.11.79) the Government servant can apply for any correction in the date of birth. (2) The submission of the petitioner is that he has applied for correction within 5 years from the date of the said notification, and the respondent/N.D.M.C. was under an obligation to correct the same but the respondent has erroneously and illegally rejected the petitioner's representation to that effect. Brief facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in this case are set out as under: (3) The petitioner who was an employee of the New Delhi Municipal Committ...

Trans Asia Auto and General Finance Ltd. Vs. Mr. Shiv Bahadur Singh an ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Trans Asia Auto and General Finance Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the complainant has its office at Kiran Mansion 24/4834, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The complainant was in need of a three, phase electricity connection with sanctioned load of 20 k.w. The opposite party Mr. Shiv Bahadur Singh was carrying on work as Electrical Engineer and Government approved licenced contractor under the name and style of M/s. Pratap Electric Works. They were also registered with Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU for short). The opposite party undertook to obtain the aforesaid sanctioned load and connection for the complainant's premises and charged Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 8.6.89. The opposite party, however failed to get the needful done. Instead its started blackmailing the complainant by demanding a further sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The complainant approached D.F.- 1 for refund of the amount of Rs. ...

industrial Meters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT181TriDel

1. The short point to be considered in this case is whether forwarding charges, Angadia charges and testing charges are required to be added to the assessable value or not.2. When the matter was posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits particularly in view of the fact that amount involved in this case is Rs. 60,506.20 only which has already been paid by them.4. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has discussed the issue and observed that the party did not produce or substantiate the evidence in support of their contention that these charges were incurred outside the factory that too after the goods were cleared. His findings is in the last para of his order. The same is reproduced below :- "If the forwarding charges and Angadia charges are incurred after the goods leave the factory, then the value of the same should not be added to the assessable value. However, the respondents could not produce separatel...

Collector of Customs Vs. K. Mohan and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT202TriDel

1. Respondent, engaged in trading in Brass Scrap, imported a consignment of Brass Scrap "Night" as per NARI specifications. The import was on 9-9-1981. The Assistant Collector of Customs levied customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962 and additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Additional duty was levied at an .amount equal to the Central Excise duty leviable on like article under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, CES Act) if manufactured or produced in India. The assessment and levy were made on the Bill of Entry and no reasoned order was passed. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order and allowed the appeal filed by the Importer on the ground that Brass Scrap was covered by Exemption Notification No. 33/81, dated 1-3-1981 and exempt from Central Excise duty and hence the additional duty payable was nil. The Central Government took up the matter in suo motu review under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and issued notice to the Resp...

National Marketing Co. and ors. Vs. Shyam Shanker Goela and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT397

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) Suit No. 495/80 is filed by M/s National Marketing Company and the second plaintiff is the proprietor of the concern against the three defendants i.e. defendant No. I Bank of India, Chandi Chowk, Delhi, defendant No. 2 Delhi Faridabad Textile (P) Ltd. and defendant No. 3 is Shri B.M. Jain. The suit is for recovery of Rs-1,87,075.00 from the first defendant (Bank of India) and Rs. 1,37,075.00 from defendants 2 and 3.(2) Suit No. 458/81 is filed by the Bank of India against three defendants, i.e. defendant No. I M/s National Marketing Company, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of defendant No. I, for recovery of Rs. 2,19,740.94.(3) I do not propose to set out the pleadings in the two cases because it is wholly unnecessary to put burden on this judgment with the averments in the pleadings which have absolutely no relevance in deciding the issues between the parties.(4) The fact that the National Marketing Company had dealings with Bank of India is not disputed...

Manju Bhatia Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)141; 63(1996)DLT894; 1996(39)DRJ58

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Appellants, who claim to be owners and in possession of Flat No.11-E on the 11th Floor of property bearing Municipal No.10, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, popularly known as 'White House' building, have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.3135 of 1996 and CM.5502/96 vide order dated 20.8.1996.(2) The appellants had filed an appeal bearing No.307-AT/96 before the Appellate Tribunal, M.C.D.against the demolition order passed by the Chairperson, N.D.M.C. dated 17.7.1996 for demolition of four upper floors of the White House building. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide a common order dated 26.7.1996 by which the appeals of the owners and another flat owner were also dismissed. An appeal bearing No.40/96-CA was preferred by the appellants against the Appellate Tribunal's order before the Lt.Governor, who dismissed the same vide a common order dated 16.8.1996 by which the a...

DeseIn P. Ltd. Vs. Ansal Prop. and Ind.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996RLR453

A.K. Srivastava, J.(1) [ED. facts : Pff. Co. in Jan., 82 gave Rs 10 lakh to Deft. and booked 2 commercial flats which were to-be built by Deft. at 38, Nehru Place. By letter dt. 7.1.85, Deft. told pff. as latter had not paid installments, his allotment was cancelled and same can be restored on payment of Rs 8.65 lakhs or Deft. could take back balance sum on or before 15.1.85. Pff. did not exercise the option offered and instead filed suit for recovery of Rs 10 lakh and interest 71/2 lakh alleging cause of action arose upon receipt of letter dt. 7.1.85 on 10.1.85. The defense was that pff. was to pay Installment on 1.2.82, 31.3.82 and 15.5.82 and as pff. did not pay these, his allotment was cancelled and 20% price of the flat was forfeited. Deft. claimed that suit was barred by time and it was entitled to forfeit Rs 10 lakh and pff. was not entitled to any interest. Deft. did not execute any agreement about the bargain. It only sent some letter, demanding installments and threatening ca...

Byford Leasing Ltd. Vs. Priya Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT384

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 on the allegations that for an amount which was due to respondent No. 1, the petitioner Company had issued a cheque for Rs.2 lacs. This cheque was signed by respondent No. 2 and one Mrs. Rita Mathur being authorised signatories of the petitioner-Company having been authorised by a resolution of the Company to sign the cheques. The said cheque, on presentation to the bank, was not honoured and inspire of notice, the amount of the cheque having not been paid to the complainant, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the petitioners as well as against respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Rita Mathur. Mrs. Rita Mathur has since died and there is no complaint against her. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording the evidence, being satisfied that a prima fade case had been made out, issued summons to the petitioners and respondent No. 2. Bein...

Wimco Ltd. Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarveshchandra, Chairman - The application for dispensing with the pre-deposit came up for disposal today. Shri Diwan, at the outset, filed three compilations of documents 'A', 'B' and 'C. He has also filed, to facilitate appreciation of his arguments, a statement showing realisable amounts of exports and their respective positions on date. The same position has been filed in a tabular form as Chart 'A' containing references of the relevant documents in respect of outstanding GRIs as also a Chart of export performance of the appellant for the years 198189. These documents are taken on record. Copies of these documents have been handed over to Shri Gadoo dasti 2. Shri Diwan for the appellants submitted that in support of the dispensation application he would not claim financial hardship. He submitted that it would cause undue hardship to the appellant if he is required to pre-deposit the amount of penalty as the impugned order is ex facie untenable in law. Elaborating his argument he su...

Metropolitan Leather Goods (P) Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT256TriDel

1. In this appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 6-4-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants had imported Belt buckles, which were assessed to duty under Heading 8308.90 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants had lodged two claims for refund of duty on the grounds that the said item imported by them v/ere decorative metal buckles and were entitled to the benefit of Notification No.224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985. This plea was rejected by the lower authorities.2. When the case was called none appeared for the appellants. The appellants have sent a letter dated 28-8-1996 by which they submitted that the Tribunal has decided the issue in their favour in their own case as per Order No. C/148 and 149/93-D, dated 16-4-1993 by which the Tribunal has taken a view that the item imported by them comes within S. No. 10 of the Notification with description of goods namely "Metallic Embellishments other than zip fasteners". They also relied on the subsequent Tribunal's order ...