Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

S. Bala Bawa Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT101; 1997(43)DRJ177

Arun Kumar, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the action of the University of Delhi in not appointing her as Principal of the Bharti Mahila College. In response to an advertisement for appointment to the said post the petitioner had applied on 29th October 1992. She had been selected for the said post by the Governing Body of the College. However, her name was not approved by the University and, thereforee, she was not appointed. According to the stand of the University the petitioner is not eligible for the said appointment as she does not possess Masters' Degree in a relevant subject. (2) I have had the benefit of perusing the judgments given by two of my learned colleagues. In view of the difference in the opinion expressed by the two learned Judges the matter has been referred to me. The relevant Ordinances of the University are quoted hereinafter:- Ordinance XVI. Qualification of University Teachers:- Principal (I)Good academic record with at least second class (C in the seven p...

Ashok Kumar Sood Vs. Rajindra Properties

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This order will dispose of 12 Appeal Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 430 of 1994 all directed against a common order of District Forum-I dated 29.7.1994 disposing of 13 separate complaints and Appeal No. 485 of 1995 filed by the opposite party against the order of District Forum-II dated 17.8.1995. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that in February, 1986 M/s. Rajindra Properties and Industries, a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Rajinder Jain s/o Sh. T.C. Jain advertised about the proposed construction of Rajendra Sunehri Bhavan on plot No. 6, Janak Puri, Local Community Centre, New Delhi. He invited the public to book commercial places in the said building on certain terms and conditions and assured the persons booking the space delivery of possession in two or 2 years from the time of booking. A number of persons including the complainants booked specified places. In the case of Mr. Ashok Kumar Sood the booking ...

Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Rama Thakur and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 8.5.1997 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi In order to appreciate the points raised for consideration it is necessary to state the background briefly. 2. In 1989 M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. introduced a car called Montana and invited general public to make bookings with a local dealer by depositing Rs. 10,000/- each. Several persons booked orders for the car. In course of time, the cars were supplied to some of the persons who had booked orders for the same. Various defects were noticed. Ultimately, the manufacturer stopped the production of the car. In the meanwhile, a large number of persons who had made the booking, cancelled their orders and asked the dealer to refund the booking amount together with interest. The manufacturer intimated the persons who had cancelled the orders, that the cases for cancellation were under process and necessary action was being taken. Such pers...

Plus Cosmetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT71TriDel

1. The persons aggrieved by the Order-in-Original No. 8 of 1997, dated 27-2-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur having filed the above appeals, these applications have been filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty demanded and the penalties imposed. The applications are opposed by Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR. We have heard both the sides.M/s. Plus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Plus) manufactures detergent powder and cakes and the present dispute is limited to cakes. M/s. Pratibha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as Pratibha) manufactures toilet soaps and detergent cakes and the dispute relates to both. The brand name of the detergent cake manufactured by both these companies belong to M/s. Corona Cosmetics & Chemicals (Corona). The brand name of the toilet soap manufactured by Pratibha belongs to Pratibha. The period involved in the case of Plus is July, 1985 to ...

Fancy Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT329TriDel

1. Appeal Nos. C/1488 and C/1598/92-NB have been filed by M/s. Fancy Dyeing and Printing Works whereas Appeal No. C/2204/92-NB has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Since these three appeals arise out of the same order, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the two appeals filed by appellants are that on the basis of intelligence collected by the Customs Authorities that the importer was importing the goods not covered by DEEC Book, investigations were conducted and four consignments were traced out at madras Port and five consignments were traced out at Bombay Port. The importer was called upon to produce documents. Instead of appearing in pursuance of summons issued, the importer informed the Customs Authorities that they had completed ex- _ port obligations against Import/Export Pass Book No. 0000257 and 0000280. The goods lying in Bombay Port and Madras Port are not directly related to the Export production...

Kapoor Lamps Shade Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(73)LC819Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of lamps and lighting fittings which at the material time were classifiable under Tariff Heading 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They are alleged to have failed to pay duty when the clearance of the goods in 1984-85 exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs ceiling under Notification No. 77/83 dated 1.3.1983.2. Arguing for the appellants learned Counsel submits that at the material time, they were eligible for benefit of exemption Notification No. 77/83-CE dated 1.3.1983 as amended, which exempted first clearances of goods up to a value of Rs. 30 lakhs in any financial year. As per requirement of Notification No. 111/78-CE dated 9.5.1978 as amended, they regularly filed declaration during each financial year and thus claimed exemption from obtaining a Central Excise Licence, the value of their clearances being within the prescribed limit of Rs. 24 lakhs, i.e., 80% of the total exempted limit of Rs. 30 lakhs. Appellants sold their various product...

Anz Grindlays Bank Plc and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)655; 71(1998)DLT175

K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This petition under Section 228 read with Section 241 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has been filed alleging that Ms. Esther Chawner, was a permanent resident of Ywca, 4, New Cantonment Road, Dehradun (U.P.) and she died on August 4, 1995. At the lime of the death the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales. During her life time Ms. Esther Chawner executed :i Will dated April 28,1972 and Codicil dated March 5, 1988 and appointed Anz Grindlays Bank plc as the executor and trustee of her Will. It is further alleged that the aforementioned Will and the Codicil were duly approved and registered in the Principal Registry, District Probate Registry at Winchester and probate was granted in favor of Anz Grindlays Bank pic of Minerva House, Montague Close, London Sei 9DH on March 28,1996. Sole beneficiary under the aforesaid Codicile dated March 5,1988, in respect of the residue estate of the deceased is the Sharp Memorial Blind School of Rajpur, Dehradun. During her...

R and D Enterprises (Exports) Vs. Air France

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)570; AIR1998Delhi193; 70(1997)DLT63; 1997(43)DRJ443

D.K. Jain, J. (1) A short but interesting point arising in the matter is whether the amount of court fees payable in a suit for recovery of money against an international air carrier, falling within the ambit of [The] Carriage by Air Act, (69 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the ACT) is to be computed ad-valorem, on the amount claimed or it can be paid on a tentative value, taking shelter under Rule 22(5) in the IInd Schedule to the Act on the plea that the plaintiff, who seeks conversion of foreign currency in the Indian Rupee, is not aware of the exact amount likely to be awarded, because it has to be worked out on the exchange rate prevailing on the date of judgment in the suit. (2) Plaintiff no.1 is a proprietory concern of plaintiff no.2. Defendant no.1, Air France, is an international airways. Defendant no.2 is the consignee of goods based in New York. The plaintiff's case is that they consigned fifty packages of garments of the weight of 555 Kilograms from Delhi to New York ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Ravi Metal Industries

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)161; 1998(44)DRJ424

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present suit has been filed against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 7,42,655.33 with pendente lite and future interest.(2) New Bank of India which has been merged with Punjab National Bank, plaintiff herein, with effect from September 4, 1993 vide Notification No.1/2/93-B.O.I(ii) was a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act having its Head Office at 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi and a branch thereof amongst others is at Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. The suit has been signed, verified and filed by Shri Jag Mohan Sharma who at the relevant time was the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank. It is stated that he is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is in a position to depose the same. He is also constituted General Attorney of the plaintiff Bank and is duly empowered to sign, verify and institute the legal proceedings against the defaulting parties. Shri K.K.Modi, Deputy General Manager who ha...

Sgt. Patel A.D. Vs. Chief of Air Staff

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)551; 71(1998)DLT125; 1998(44)DRJ386

(1) It is an admitted fact on record that the tenure of petitioner's posting in Delhi has yet not been completed. He was punished for an offence committed by him on 25th July, 1997 and the present transfer is on account of that very offence. thereforee, it cannot be said that this transfer was not by way of punishment but in public interest. No public interest has been explained or justified by the respondent inspire of opportunities given. I, thereforee, find force in the submissions of Mr. Kaushik that transferring him out of Delhi as a punishment for the offence for which he has already ben punished amounts to two penalties for one offence. This is not permissible because two penalties cannot be consecutively imposed for the same misconduct. It would amount to double jeopardy. It is well settled rule of English Law which find impression in the maximum 'Nemo debt his vexari' means a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence. Under the Indian Constitution in particular A...