Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

Standard Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Test Equipment

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)701; 1997(41)DRJ670

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. l,25,000.00 with interest @ 18% per annum. The alternative prayer is made that if for , any reason a decree is not passed in favor of the second plaintiff, the same may be passed in favor of the first plaintiff or jointly in favor of both the plaintiffs for the same amount. (2) Before I refer to the pleadings I should note a few facts. On 06.11.1979, the first plaintiff M/s Standard Castings (P) Ltd. had placed an order for the purchase of 300 Kv 5MA Panoramic 360' X-ray Unit, that is marked as Exhibit P-1 in the case. Towards the 10% advance a sum of Rs. 17.991.00 was paid by the first plaintiff on 22.02.1980. Towards 20% advance a cheque was issued by the first plaintiff that was dishonoured but subsequently on 18.07.1980 a sum of Rs. 53.883.00 was paid towards 20% advance. (3) It would appear that on 15.09.1980 the machine was ready according to the defendant. On 06.10.1980 the de...

G.P. Glass Co. Vs. Vinod Soni

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum, placed an order with the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party, for the supply of piece of glass 4' x 6' of 10 mm. thickness and paid advance of Rs. 3,000/-. The glass was to be supplied within 15 days. On the same day, the complainant also placed an order or two pieces of glass sheet for which he paid a sum of Rs. 4,237/-. The delivery was to be made within 2-3 days. Opposite party issued two receipts with regard to payment of advance with regard to one piece and advance payment with regard to two of other pieces. The opposite party delivered two pieces for which he had already received the payment. The pieces of glass supplied, had manufacturing defect with regard to its transpirency and also scratches. The complainant paid a number of visits and one employee named Mr. Anand of the opposite party visited the house of the complainant after a month or so and conceeded the afor...

Byford Leasing Ltd. Vs. Kanwaljit Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant is a leasing Company engaged in arranging financing of motor vehicles. The Company also helps its customers to buy motor vehicles booked by other persons on payment of price agreed to by the customer wanting to buy the same immediately. The appellant made such a deal with the respondent in respect of a Maruti Van which was originally booked by M/s. Pooja Sales Corporation with the authorised dealer namely M/s. Saya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for an agreed amount. With respect to the said deal, the customer Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, had the following grievances: (i) The Citi Bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,02,614/-. The opposite party had shown a credit of only Rs, 99,000/-. (ii) The cost of the vehicle agreed to was Rs. 1,22,000/-. In fact the opposite party had charged Rs. 1,26,951/-. (iii) Expenses on road tax, registration, due were Rs. 1.350/-. In fact, Rs. 1,850/- had been charged. (iv) The opposite p...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. A.B.C. Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT111TriDel

1. The department has come up in appeal against the order passed by Collector (Appeals) reversing the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claim of the respondent and in turn allowing the refund claim.2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves, was clearing the goods on payment of duty having opted for invoice price procedure under Notification 120/75. Subsequently respondent filed refund claim for Rs. 1,635.53 stating that by an error the charges for second testing conducted at the option of the purchasers in the premises of the respondent's factory had been erroneously included in the assessable value for the purposes of payment of duty and that cost of such testing was not includible in the assessable value and duty was not payable on that account and therefore, excise duty paid has to be refunded. Assistant Collector rejected the claim but the same was allowed by the Collector (Appeals).3. The material facts of the case are not in disput...

Associated Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT218TriDel

1. The common appellant in these two appeals, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters, filed price list in Part I and the same was approved by the proper officer. Thereafter they obtained sanction of the Deputy Collector to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification 80/80. Meanwhile, they had collected excise duty in respect of the clearances from the buyers but paid duty only subject to the exemption. In other words, within the limit of clearance stipulated in the notification, appellant had collected excise duty in spite of exemption and did not pay the duty amount to the department because of the exemption. For the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1982 appellant filed refund application on 17-7-1982, seeking refund of Rs. 2,77,645.85. Notice was issued to the appellant stating duty on the clearances within the exemption limit having been collected from customers without liability to pay over the same to the Government such amount remaining in the hands of the appellant repr...

Guru Ram Das Engineering Works (P) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT85TriDel

1. The appellants are small scale manufacturers of steel flats. They removed such dutiable flats without cover of gate pass. Officers, on visit to the factory, found that three gate passes were made out without indicating the weight and value of the goods as well as names of the consignees. They also found that PLA did not have sufficient balance to cover the duty leviable on the goods. They, therefore, siezed the goods and the conveyance. After issuing of a show cause notice, Senior Superintendent confiscated goods but permitted redemption thereof on payment of a fine. He imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellants. The Collector (appeals) upheld the order.Hence this appeal.2. The appellants were not present although due intimation had been sent. We proceed to decide this case after hearing Shri G.D. Sharma, JDR.3. Before the lower authorities and before us, the plea taken is that the assessees being a small unit did not have weighing machinery. It was the practice in their area...

Punjab Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT222TriDel

1. The issue for determination in the above appeal which arises out of the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh is the eligibility to Modvat credit of duty paid on pig iron used by the appellants herein in the manufacture of the ceramic insulator. The appellants used pig iron and the intermediate product manufactured therefrom is disc/cap which is then captively consumed in the manufacture of the final product of the appellants viz. ceramic insulator. Credit has been disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that this disc/cap which is a product of casting does not attract any duty; on the other hand it is the case of the appellants that the disc/cap are in the nature of intermediate products which are admittedly captively consumed by them in the manufacture of ceramic insulator and hence they are covered by the provisions of Rule 57D(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel and Shri Jangir Singh, ld. JDR.3. We ...

Mohd. Afzal Vs. Noor Nisha Begum

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)197; 1997(2)Crimes493; 66(1997)DLT372; 1997(40)DRJ825; (1997)116PLR39

Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th February, 1996 passed by Mr. R.K. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent herein under sections 323/452 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) Brief facts which led to the present revision petition are as under : that on Mst.Noor Nisha Begum Filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, P.S. Lahori Gate under sections 452/448/506/463/465/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after the appraisal of the evidence led by the complaint came to the conclusion that the alleged incident never took place and the complaint itself was a Figment of the imagination of the complainant. He was-further of the view that the complaint was Filed in order to bring pressure on the respondents. Hence the said complaint was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28th Octo...

indraj Singh and ors. Vs. Satdev Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)939; 67(1997)DLT385

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) The petitioner/defendant challenges an order dated 10th January, 1997 allowing amendment of the plaint to claim relief of possession in an Injunction Suit No. 245/88. (2) Brief facts giving rising to the present petition are as under : (3) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for injunction on 27th October, 1988 for restraining the father of the defendant/petitioner Shri Mange Ram from raising any construction over the land in dispute. But the deceased defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff on 28th July, 1988. It appears that a contempt application was also filed. But the deceased Mange Ram expired. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession on 4th October, 1995 which was entrusted to the Court of Shri Ravi Kumar.That Suit No. 193/95 in S.D. Singh v. Inder Raj & Ors., was dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally without giving any permission to file afresh. In view of these changed circumstances, due to death of Mange Ram, the Contemnor in the earlier suit and ...

Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1997)BC463; [1997]89CompCas483(Delhi); 1997(41)DRJ305

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The Respondent has filed the above application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as amended, read with Section 151 CPC. (2) The Arbitrator had passed the award in favor of the Lloyd Insulations (India ) Pvt. Ltd. against the Cement Corporation of India Ltd. The Cement Corporation of India had filed objections against the award. Now the Cement Corporation of India had filed the above application. According to the Respondent/Applicant the Company has been referred to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Section 15 of the Act. The same has been registered as Case No. 501/96. According to the Respondent/Applicant by virtue of Section 22 of the Act, the proceedings in the suit have to be stayed and can be proceeded only with the consent of the BIFR. (3) The Petitioner has filed the reply to the above application staling that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 are outside the purvie...