Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments

Birla Yamha Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT472TriDel

1. In all these three appeals both common question of law and facts are involved all these appeals are taken up together for disposal.2. The Appellants imported components for generator parts for generators for initial setting up/manufacture and claimed classification under heading 85.02 alongwith the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus. Alongwith the goods stated above, the importer also imported spring tension, Washer plain spring coil, spring tension, spring compress flang screw, screw pan head and claimed the benefit of notification in question. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that they did not submit certificate from the D.G.T.D. or other competent authority as per condition No. 1 of the Notification. Ld. Collector considered this plea and accepted the certificate produced by them. However, he held that the Notification No. 155/86-Cus., dated 17-3-1987 did not give the benefit to the goods falling under Chapters 84 and 85 and hence denied the be...

P.C. Sharma and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi1786; 70(1997)DLT521

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The Arbitrator had passed the award on 30.7.1994 in favor of the claimant M/s. P.C. Sharma & Co. and against the D.D.A. The D.D.A. has filed the objections. The contract between the claimant and the D.D.A. was for the construction of 840DUs under S.F.S. in Pocket-VIII, Sector-Cat Vasant Kunj S.H. 64 Cat. Ill, 48 Cat. Ii and 80 scooter garages i.e. internal development Group II. The disputes arose between the parties and they were referred for adjudication. (2) In Claim No. 1 the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 21,985.00 on account of refund of rebate deducted for payment of monthly bill without fulfillling the contingent condition. The Arbitrator had stated the claim of the claimant in the following terms: Respondents had accepted claimants' condition regarding offer of rebate of 0.25% on estimated cost of work for making monthly payments provided the gross value of the work done in any month was not less than Rs. 25,000.00 and this rebate was to be deducted fr...

Dhruv Chandiram Vs. H. Chandiram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)567; 68(1997)DLT871; 1997(43)DRJ189

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts of the firm M/s Punjab Manufacturing Corporation. The first defendant had two sons, namely, Balwant Singh Chandiram and Suresh Chandiram. The plaintiff Mr. Dhruv Chandiram, is the son of Balwant Singh Chandiram. The second defendant Suresh Chandiram is the son of first defendant. The 4th defendant is the widow of Balwant Singh Chandiram. The marriage between Balwant Singh Chandiram and Mrs. Neera Chandiram (4th defendant) was the dispute by defendants 1 to 3. On 07.06.1984 Mr. Balwant Singh Chandiram was expired. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff that he attained majority on 06.07.1995. Till that date the plaintiff was being paid a sum of Rs. 2000.00 by crossed cheque and a telephone was provided and rent of the premises where the plaintiff and the 4th defendant is living was being paid by the first defendant out of the profit of the partnership firm. (3) When in the ye...

Rama Vision Ltd. Vs. Babbar Vision India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)193; II(1997)BC91; 67(1997)DLT281; 1997(42)DRJ185

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this order I would be disposing of IA.54/95 filed by the defendants under Order xxxvii Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff under Order xxxvII.(2) Plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of picture tubes for black and white television sets, having its godown at Noida. Defendant No.2 is the Managing Director and the other defendants are the Directors of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff company for the supply of black and white television picture tubes. Defendant No.1 assured the plaintiff that it had overdraft facilities with the Vijaya Bank, Bikaji Cama Place, new Delhi and the goods could be delivered against post-dated cheques, which can be encased as and when they became due. Plaintiff, accordingly, agreed to supply the goods to defendant no.1.(3) As per the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.8,87,450.00 was payable by the defendants for supplies...

L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)53; 1997CriLJ2559; 1997(4)Crimes1; 66(1997)DLT618; 1997(41)DRJ274; (1997)116PLR1; 1997RLR292

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) 'LET honesty be as the breath of thy soul; then shalt though reach the point of happiness, and independence shall be thy shield and buckler, thy helmet and crown ; then shall thy soul walk upright, nor stoop to the silken wretch because he had riches, nor pocket an abuse because the hand which offers it wears a ring set with diamonds.' - Frannklin. 'The whole of Government consists in the art of being honest.' - Thomas Jefferson, Works Vi, 186.Thus Realizing the importance of honesty and probity in public life and to weed out the corruption rampant amongst the public servants, the legislators thought it fit and proper to frame a comprehensive legislation in the form of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as the existing laws in the form of Sections 161 to 165A Indian Penal Code, they felt, had proved inadequate for dealing with the situation obtaining at that time on account of war and immediately thereafter. Subsequently in order to further strengthen the anti- corr...

Rakesh Dhingra Vs. National Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Fina ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)111; 67(1997)DLT895; 1997(41)DRJ255

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner in this petition has prayed for quashing the order dated 14.12.1994 passed by respondent No. 3 imposing the penalty of removal from the service of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 14.3.1995 passed by the Board of Directors of respondent No. 4 and which was communicated vide letter dated 24.3.1995 dismissing the appeal against order of removal be also quashed. (2) The petitioner has also prayed that the inquiry report dated 26.5.1994 be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that the order dated 6.8.1993 imposing censure penalty be also quashed. (3) The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to quash the order of stoppage of two increments. He has also prayed that order dated 11.9.1991 be quashed by which he was divested of the charge of Finance Manager. He has also prayed that letters dated 6.8.1993 suspending the petitioner be quashed. (4) The petitioner has also prayed that adverse ent...

U.S. Boparai Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)810; 1997(41)DRJ474b

Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner who was an Air Commodore has Filed this writ petition for quashing the order of retirement dated 23.11.1995. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him to the rank of Air Vice Marshal from 1995, when he was first considered with notional seniority. (2) This Court issued a show cause notice in the writ petition and the petition of stay rejected as infructuous. (3) The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are recapitulated as under: (4) The petitioner joined the Pilot Training Establishment in the year 1962-63 and got promotions up to the level of Air Commodore in the Air Force. The petitioner's main grievance before this Court is that the respondents arbitrarily have not promoted him to the rank of Air Vice Marshal. (5) It is also submitted in reply that these remarks in ARs existed even when the petitioner was promoted to the rank of group Capt and Air Commodore. But when an officer comes up ...

Sukh Ram Dass Vs. Ramesh Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)133; 67(1997)DLT289; 1997(41)DRJ589

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order I would be disposing of the objection to the maintainability of the suit under Order Ii Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for grant of a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 4.7.1991, in respect of Flat No. 8-2/98/VI, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. (3) Written Statement to the plaint has been filed, objecting to the maintainability of the suit. One of the grounds taken is that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, bearing No.54/92, in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi on the same facts and cause of action, and with a similar prayer. The said suit had been dismissed as withdrawn on the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant, thereforee, contends that the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order Ii Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) When the present suit had come up before the Court on 25.5.1992, the qu...

Rashmi Naqrath Vs. Sarva Priya Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)309; 66(1997)DLT713; 1997(41)DRJ448

Vijender Jain, J. (1) A backdrop of events of this case in brief are that Mr.S P Kapur, father of the petitioner, was enrolled as a member of the respondent-Society on 30.6.1961. After the death of father of the petitioner his wife, Mrs.Vimal Kapur, was made a member on 23.6.1966. However, on the representation of Mrs.Vimal Kapur, wife of late Mr.S P Kapur, the deposit and share certificate were transferred in favor of the petitioner on 23.7.1966. Petitioner made various payments to the respondent-Society. On 27.6.1971, petitioner married one Mr.Ranjit Nagrath. Respondent-Society wrote to the petitioner to File fresh affidavit by 21.10.1971 that she or her husband or any other dependent member does not own a house or plot of land in Delhi. In the meanwhile, respondent-Society was allotted additional land of 1.7 acres and thereafter respondent No.1 raised a demand against the members to pay Rs.55/= per sq.yds. for developing the said land. The next date of the draw of lot was Fixed by t...

Sabina Khanna Vs. M/S. Nuchem Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant deposited Rs. 5.00,000/-with the opposite party on 4.8.95 under Cumulative Deposit Scheme, hereinafter referred to as the CFDR. The amount was to be paid alongwith interest @ 14.90% and the amount due at maturity on 1.8.96, was to be Rs. 5,74,500/-. The complainant deposited the original CFDR in the office of the opposite party two weeks before the due date. The opposite party, however, failed to pay the amount. After the complainant ran from pillar to post the opposite party paid a cheque for Rs. 74,500/-dated 1.8.96. The cheque was returned un-encahsed on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The complainant's further efforts proved of no avail. Registered notice dated 12.9.96 also produced no result. Accordingly, the present complaint was filed on 12.12.96 claiming Rs. 9,67,202/-as per following break up:IDUESNo.DatedDue onAmt.A.Principle CHDR586191.8.961.8.955,00,000/-B.Dishonoured ch cheque1176281.8.96Canara Bank74,500/-C.Interest @ 14....