Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 68(1997)DLT234; 1997(42)DRJ565

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Satyavir Singh Rathi is an Assistant Commissioner of Police. He has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered by the C.B.I. under sections 302, 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.(2) Exordial speaking, the point for discussion is short but its legal import and human portent are deep meriting examination in some detail. However, before I proceed to do so, a thumb nail sketch of the sequence of events would be necessary to get a hang of the core of the case. And, before that too what needs to be noticed is that the investigation was first conducted by the Delhi Police and then taken over by the C.B.I. I have thought it fit to mention it since the Delhi Police has come up with its own version which the C.B.I. paints as palpably false. I shall be dealing with both the versions in their necessary detail.(3) First, the version of the Delhi Police.(4) The Delhi Police was on the look out for a person by the name of Mohd. Yasin who was wanted in as ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1997)ACC377; 1998ACJ886; 1997IVAD(Delhi)709; 70(1997)DLT604; 1997(42)DRJ620; 1997RLR511

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. (2) Learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, has vehemently contended that the learned lower Court while passing the impugned order for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (`the Act' for short) did not take into consideration the defense of the appellant that the person who was driving the vehicle was not holding the driving license and the vehicle was being driven without a licence. Learned counsel in this connection has led me through a letter dated March 23, 1994 written by Khatri & Associates to M/s National Insurance Co. Then there is another letter from Khatri & Associates dated January 29, 1994 addressed to the Licensing Authority, Alwar with a report of the Licensing Authority thereon. The other letter which I have been taken through is from Mahajan Associates to National Insurance Company, Pathankot dated March 2, 1995 with a rep...

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT607

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Pradeep Kumar is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. (2) The prosecution alleges that on 31st of March, 1993, consequent upon a secret information, a raiding party was formed, the appellant was nabbed, a notice under Section 50 of the Act was given and thereafter 25 grams of Charas was recovered from his possession out of which sample weighing 5 grams was taken out. The sample so taken and the remaining Charas were thereafter put in separate parcels and sealed, first with the seal of the Investigating Officer and thereafter with the seal of the Station House Officer. (3) The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on a number of grounds. His first contention is that no notice under Section 50 of the Act was given and that in any case the notice alle...

N.S.M. Ahmed Jamalia Bevi Vs. D.N. Shah

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997RLR614

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Respondent was a tenant under the appellant in respect of a premises containing 4 shops. He had sub-let portions and was Realizing sufficient rent. He had not paid the landlady rent for more than a year who gave him a notice of demand. He ignored the notice and she was compelled to sue him for eviction. The tenant did not deposit the rent as required under S.II of the Act to seek leave to defend. Ex parte eviction decree was passed. He applied for setting aside of the same which was done. Even after this he did not deposit the rent. After adverse order he filed an appeal which was dismissed. He moved High Court. High Court allowed him to deposit the arrears. He again failed and landlady applied to the Controller for eviction which was allowed. Tenant filed appeal which was dismissed. He again came to High Court who allowed him further time. Landlady challenged this in the Supreme Court. After detailing above the judgment is: 615 (2) All these years the respondent di...

Manohar Singh Vs. Ram Chander

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(44)DRJ428

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This revision is directed against an impugned order dated 19th April 1994 allowing an appeal and dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and reversing the order dated 23rd May 1992 restraining the defendants Ram Chander and others and their agents from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land.(2) According to the case of the plaintiff/petitioners, 17 bids was land in khasra in actual physical possession of Budha s/o in actual physical possession of Budha s/o Shravan. He expired leaving behind his tow sons Ram Phal and Prem Chand. His two sons also expired leaving behind Panna Devi and Dewan Kaur. They purchased this land from the legal heirs of Budha, i.e. his the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on the behest of the daughters-in-law of Budha on Agreement to Sell. They both executed Power of Attorney dated 28th March 1990 but the plaintiffs claim that they are in possession and occupation since 1989. The possession had been duly...

India Cine Agencies Vs. Uco Bank and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. India Cine Agencies, complainant for short, had a Current Account with the Chandni Chowk Branch of United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), arrayed as opposite party 2. According to the complainant they had been asking for a Statement of Account, but the same was not furnished by the said bank. It was only in July, 1993 that the said Statement of Account was furnished. A scrutiny of the same revealed that a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- was not credited in the complainant's account in respect of 19 cheques which were deposited with the bank for collection and the amount thereof was duly released by the said Bank. The complainant obtained certificates from the banks concerned regarding payment having been made to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the UCO Bank for being credited to the account of the complainant. On the asking of the opposite party the complainant also furnished photostat copies of the counterfoils of the pay-in-slips relatin...

Naina Semi Conductor Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. M/s. Naina Semi Conductors Limited, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, is a Company duly registered under the Companies Act and the present complaint has been filed through Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dhawan, Finance Manager/ Principal Officer of the Company, duly authorised by a Resolution of the Board of Directors. M/s. Andhra Bank Finance Services Limited, opposite party-I is a limited Company and is a subsidiary of Andhra Bank, arrayed as oppo-site party-2, which is a nationalised Bank. The case of the complainant is that on 26.8.1992, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/(Rupees twenty-five lacs) at Branch Office at Delhi of opposite party-I by a pay Order, payable at Dena Bank, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. This was an inter-corporate deposit for a fixed period of 90 days and it was to carry interest @ 21% per annum. The amount became payable on 25.11.1992. Prior to the date of maturity, on 1.10.1992 the opposite party-I wrote to the complainant th...

Hi-mile Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC281Tri(Delhi)

1. The common appellant in these appeals engaged in the manufacture of compounded rubber falling under Chapter Heading 4005 (which has only sub-heading 4005.00), filed classification list on 26-4-l989 claiming benefit of Notification [173/86]1 amended till that date as per which partial exemption was available in the case of appellant who was availing Modvat credit on inputs. The Assistant Collector directed provisional assessment on that basis. Subsequently three show cause notices dated 6-11-1989, 18-4-1990 and 12-9-1990 were issued stating that the notification was not applicable and proposing demand of differential duty calculated without the benefit of the partial exemption. The notices were resisted by the appellant. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands and his orders were confirmed by a common order passed by the Collector (Appeals). This order has led to Appeals No. E/971/92-C and E/1123/92-C. Apparently on the direction of the Assistant Collector that demand...

Birla Vxl Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT387TriDel

1. The facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that the appellants received an order from State Trading Corporation of India or supply of fabrics to Nicaragua. The appellants filed a plea for grant of refund of duty paid on the fabrics. The Assistant Collector rejected the plea of the appellants on the ground that the requisite procedure prescribed under the Rules was not followed. The appellants filed an appeal before the Ld. Collector (Appeals) who also rejected the plea of the appellants on the ground that the Assistant Collector has no locus standi to entertain the rebate claimed under Rule 12 because the appellants had not followed the procedure stipulated under Rule 12.Against this finding of the lower authorities the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Shri A.N. Haksar, ld. Sr. Counsel along with Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate appeared for the appellants and submitted that the procedure set out under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is directory in cha...

Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT702TriDel

1. The application from M/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. seeks waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 15,65,317/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs.The application from Shri B.B. Verma seeks waiver of the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, learned Advocate urged that out of the Bills of Entry filed during the period 16-9-1986 to 24-12-1988, the demand confirmed in the case of 12 Bills of Entry is hit by limitation. He stated that the assessee had declared correctly description of the goods and there was no mis-declaration in their statement that the goods merited classification under Heading 39 of the CTA. He stated that all the consignments were cleared after drawal of samples and after execution of test bonds. He stated that right from 1985 similar goods had been imported and had been cleared by the Customs under Heading 39. He claimed that as against the opinion expressed by the Chemical Examiner, the opinion given by the Shriram Institute for Industrial Research supported the claim th...