Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

Panna Lal Vs. Satish Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(42)DRJ552

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Common question of law has been raised in all the three appeals arising out of a common judgment. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, thereforee, these are taken up together and disposed of by one order. (2) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that Shri Satish Kumar and others respondents herein filed eviction petition against the present appellants on three grounds, namely (i) bonafide requirement; (ii) sub-letting and finally (iii) for misuse of the premises in question. The respondents landlord/owner gave up the ground of misuse before the Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC). Respondents restricted the grounds of eviction against the appellants only on two counts, namely (i) bonafide requirement and of sub-letting. The learned Arc basing his conclusion on the evidence placed on record held that the need of the respondents herein was not bonafide. On appeal being preferred the learned Rent Control Tribun...

Desh Bhushan JaIn Vs. K.C. Mahajan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)9; 67(1997)DLT523; 1997(42)DRJ93

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order, I would be disposing of three interim applications, viz. IA. 7329/94, IA. 11209/95 and IA. 660/97. (2) IA. 7329/94 is moved by the defendant praying that the preliminary objection raised in the written statement, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, be treated as a preliminary issue. The submission being that the suit was liable to be stayed in view of the previously instituted suit for possession in the District Court, bearing Suit No. 733 of 1989 between the same parties. The suit was decreed on 4th November, 1996. An appeal preferred before the Division Bench has been admitted to hearing. (3) IA. 11209/95 is moved by the plaintiff praying, inter alia, that the evidence led by it in Suit No. 733 of 1989, for possession, be treated and read as evidence on Issue Nos.3 & 4 in the present Suit No. 413/90 for recovery of mesne profits and compensation for use. A prayer is also made for the defendant to furnish security/guarantee for the am...

Kanwar Pratap Singh Vs. Surat Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)115; 67(1997)DLT367

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the order dated January 3, 1996, of a learned Single Judge dismissing I.As. No. 6035/ 93 filed under Order Xxxix Rules 1 & 2 and Order Xl Rule 1 read with Section 151, Cpc and I.A. No. 4580/95 moved under Order Xl Rule I and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code in Suit No. 1413/93. (2) The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed inter alia, on the allegations that defendant-respondent No. 1 is the father of the appellant and defendants-respondents 2-4 and they constituted a Hindu undivided family. Huf owns and possesses ancestral properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the plaint and the appellant and the respondents have l/5th share each therein. Amongst the ancestral properties is the land comprised in Khasra No. 102/2, measuring 1 bigha at Raj Pur Chhawani, Delhi. It is alleged that in the first instance appellant took agency of Burmashell (lateran med as Bharat Petroleum) and started ru...

R.K. Aggarwal Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant had approached D.F.-II with a grievance about late delivery of car and for award of interest, compensation for mental agony and legal costs. On his complaint being dismissed by D.F.-II the complainant has come up in the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant booked with respondent No. 2 a Premier Padmini car on 12.1.1993 and deposited Rs. 1,73,000/- as its price. The understanding was that the delivery shall be made within four weeks. The disputed facts are that as per respondent No. 2 the purchase price of the car in Bombay was less by more than Rs. 13,000/- compared to the price in Delhi. The appellant, therefore, changed his mind to have delivery of the car in Delhi and placed a fresh order for delivery through Bombay. Delivery was ultimately made on 26.3.1993. The respondents have stated that although they undertook to make delivery within four weeks, there were several constraints. Also as per order of the N.C. in...

Goel S. Pal Vs. the Chief Reservation Officer

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The appellant hereinafter referred to as complainant had filed a complaint with D.F. II. The dispute raised was that the opposite party when approached for cancellation of two of the four berths got reserved by him erroneously cancelled seat Nos. 37 and 38 leaving seat Nos. 36 and 39 on which the complainant and his companion had to travel. His grievance is that the two persons Ms. Shanti Rani and M/s. Rita Goel had been allotted berth Nos. 38 and 39 and cancellation should have been of these two berths and not of Nos. 37 and 38. Seat No. 39 was a side seat in general passage which caused in-convenience to the co-traveller of Mr. Goel S. Pal. D.F. after going through the facts of the case and hearing the two sides declined to accept the version of the complainant and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order of D.F. that the complainant has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Goel S. Pal who argued in person and Mr. Surender Alda Chief Reservati...

Satya Prakash Goel Vs. Unit Trust of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Triveni Devi and the appellant Satya Prakash Goel were joint holders of certain GMIS 89 Unit Certificates. On 27.4.92, they applied for converting the said units into UTI Master Gain 1992 Certificates. The said certificates were not received by them even though they repeatedly wrote to the UTI. Ultimately, Triveni Devi mother of Mr. S.P. Goel, died on 28.5.94. It was only after the complaint had been filed in the District Forum that the Unit Certificates were issued to the complainant on 4.8.95. The grievance of the complainant was that the Unit Certificates were to be listed in the Stock Exchanges and were tradable. If the units had been received in time, they could be sold to earn substantial return. In March 93, the market price of each unit was Rs. 15/-. 2. The case of the opposite party was that whereas proceeds of GMIS 89 Unit Certificates were duly credited with the opposite party but the applicati...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Wire Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT297TriDel

1. The Collector has filed the captioned two appeals on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) has not correctly interpreted the provisions of Rule 57-I to hold that the date of taking Modvat credit is the material date for counting the period of six months for issue of show cause notice.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of copper wire and aluminium wire etc. They were availing the benefit of Mod vat credit under Rule 57A after filing declaration under Rule 57G. The respondents received a consignment of electrolytic copper wire from the importer. The bill of entry was in the name of M/s. Metal Linkers and the importer endorsed this bill of entry in the name of the respondents. The department alleged that the Modvat credit cannot be taken on the strength of the endorsed bill of entry. The lower authorities have decided the two issues one was about admissibility of Modvat credit on the strength of endorsed bill of entry and the second was ...

industrial Cables (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT379TriDel

1. Ld. Collector (Appeals) held that Modvat Scheme does not envisage availing credit on the basis of any documents other than original duty paid documents; that in the absence of this Modvat credit cannot be allowed. The Ld. Collector (Appeals), therefore, confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector had disallowed Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 5,23,452.77. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured wires and cables. They imported polythene granules for purpose of insulation of the wires and cables. Both the inputs and the final product are specified items under Notification No. 177/86 issued under Rule 57A and thus the appellants availed Modvat credit of duty equal to additional duty paid on the imported goods. The Department alleged that the appellants took Modvat credit of duty on the strength of photocopy of the Bills of Entry and, therefore, asked the appellan...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jai Laminates Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT368TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The short point to be considered in the instant case is whether decorative laminated sheets manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under Chapter 39 as per the department or under Chapter 48 as claimed by the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the party holding that this item is classifiable under Chapter 48.3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, they have requested to decide the case on merits.In their written submissions, it was submitted by them that item in question is classifiable under sub-heading No. 4823.90 and prior to 28-2-1988 it was classifiable under 4818.90 in view of the number of decisions of the Tribunal including the case of CCE v. Waldekar Laminates (P) Ltd. reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 610.5. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the v...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT585TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this reference application. Their prayer is that the following questions of law be referred to the Hon'ble High Court for their valuable opinion : (a) The issue involved i.e. the admissibility of Modvat credit on the input 'Mercury' used as Cathode in the manufacture of Caustic Soda through Electrolysis process was considered by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi in Circular No. 54/89-CX. 8 issued under F. No. 263/49/89-CX. 8, dated 4-12-1989 in consultation with the Deputy Chief Chemist, C.R.C.L., New Delhi wherein it was held that: "Caustic Soda is made by the electrolysis of sodium chloride and mercury cell is in commercial use. In mercury cells, the cathode consists of mercury and the anodes are made by rods of graphite. During electrolysis, the chlorine is liberated at the anode end. Sodium is liberated at the surface of the mercury cathode. The sodium immediately forms an amalgam. This amalgam from the electrolyzer is fed to the decompo...