Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Vikas Vohra Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)108; 1998(1)Crimes774; 68(1997)DLT649; 1997(43)DRJ315

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 343, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has placed on the record certain photographs of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. The Investigating Officer who is present in Court admits that these are the photographs of the petitioner with the prosecutrix. Even a cursory look at the photographs would show both of them in a state of bliss and happiness. It also appears from the statement of the prosecutrix that she had been moving around with him from place to place, city to city and yet without making any effort to escape. I feel the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. In the circumstances which have been noticed above the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisf...

Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)631; 68(1997)DLT783

Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the acquisition proceedings with respect to his land measuring 5 Bighas and 17 bids was comprised in Khasra Nos. 3987/186 to 191 (C-4), 2988/186 to 191 (C-4), 3989/186 to 191 (C-3), 3990/186 to 191 (C-4), 3991 /186 to 191 (C-1) and 3992/186 to 191 (5- 1) situated in Village Karkardooma, Delhi. The petitioner has challenged the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 13.11.1959 and the declaration under Section 6 dated 7.11.1968 and the award bearing No. 21/70-71 dated 28.7.1970. (2) The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that on account of long lapse of time since the date of the award the acquisition proceedings have lapsed and, thereforee, they are liable to be quashed in toto. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings being on the sole ground of delay in taking possession, the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in ...

Jai Ram Das and ors. Vs. Ghanisham Dass and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT46

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of 3/4th share, bearing No. XIII/ 1533 (Aziz Can) old name) now known as Ashok Gali, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi, marked 'N, 'B', 'C', and 'D' and shown blue in the plan attached with the plaint and that the agreement to sell dated February 22, 1972 executed between the defendants and the judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 451/77 entitled Ghanisham Dass v. Vehra Mal, decided by Shri V.K. Jain, Sub Judge, Delhi and the decree in Appeal No. RCA8/1979 dtd. 22.9.1980 passed by Shri S.P. Sabharwal, Adj, Delhi are ultra vires, void, illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity and as such are not binding upon the plaintiffs and do not in any way affect the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever, and decree of declaration to the effect be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defe...

Surendra Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)101; 71(1998)DLT187

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This or derwill govern the disposal of l.As.3951-52/97filed,by defendants 1 & 3. By filing I.A. 3951/97 defendants 1 & 3 seek to take the plea by way of preliminary objection 2A in their joint written statement as under: 'That the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary & proper party inasmuch as the defendant No. 2 Sh. Mehtab Singh Jain is the Karta of undivided H.U.F. & the fact that no partition of the suit property has been made, the entire suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary & proper party.'Following additional issue No. 3A is sought to be framed by filing I.A. 3952/97By defendants 1 & 2. 'Whether the suit is bad for deletion/non-joinder of necessary and proper party to the suit If so, to what effect ?' (2) Only a few facts are necessary for deciding both the said I.As. (3) Surindra Kumar Jain and his wife Saroj Jain filed suit, inter alia, on the allegation that being owners they are in possession of ground, first, second, third and top floors of property ...

Devaashish Vs. Shakuntala Malhotra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Smt. Shakuntala Malhotra, complainant for short, placed an order with M/s. Devaashish for an Enfield Portable Generator Model TP-1100 on 28.5.93. The price stated was Rs. 15,995/- and according to Sale Promotion Scheme, in force, at that time, a discount of Rs. 1,250/- was given on the said price. In addition to the price, the complainant had to pay Rs. 800/- for an automatic change-over switch and Rs. 105/- on account of installation. The complainant paid on 8.6.93 Rs. 15,000/- for which the opposite party issued a receipt in writing. He had earlier paid Rs. 545/- for which no receipt had been issued. According to the complainant, the generator was brought to the complainant premises on 14.6.93 but the mechanic failed to start the same. Since it had become late on that day, the generator was left with the complainant who returned the same to the opposite party on the next following date i.e., 15.6.93. The complainant's husband made an entry regarding the r...

Krishna and Co. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(73)LC472Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellants imported a consignment of 5000 Filters from United Kingdom. The goods were described in the invoice as Automotive Spare Parts Filters. Unit price was shown as 0.19. The value of the consignment declared in the Bill of Entry as Rs. 21,796/- was not accepted by the Custom House and on the basis of the price charged for a consignment of 3800 Filter elements imported at Bombay. The value of the consignment was enhanced to Rs. 66,533/- applying the rate of 0.58 per filter. After hearing the appellant, the Deputy Collector of Customs, passed his order dated 4.10.1986 fixing the assessable value as Rs. 66,533/-. He confiscated the goods on the ground of under valuation but permitted their redemption subject to payment of Rs. 33,250/-. The Deputy Collector issued a further order dated 29.11.1986 terming it as an addendum to the earlier one dated 4.10.1986 referred to above in response to the request of the appellants for a speaking order in the matter of valuation: The order was...

Shakun Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT184TriDel

1. The brief facts of the above appeals which arise out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi are that the assessees who are manufacturers of "Main Cable Harness", "Handle Bar Harness", "H.T. Cable Assembly" etc., specifically designed for scooters of M/s. LML Ltd., submitted classification list for the same effective from 1-4-1986 under sub-heading 8714.00 as "parts of scooters" which was approved by the Department and duty was paid and RT 12 returns were also finalised through out the financial year 1986-87.The assessees filed classification list No. 153/86-87 effective from 1-4-1987 for approval of the items under the same sub-heading and this list was approved only provisionally. A show cause notice dated 25-9-1987 was issued proposing re-classification under sub-heading 8544.00 as "cables" and proposing recovery of differential duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list und...

Rathi Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT332TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 28-2-1997.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Jangir Singh, ld. JDR-who appeared for the Department.3. Appellants are challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 28-2-1997 by which the Commissioner withdrew permission given to the appellants under Proviso (ii) to Rule 173G(1) which provides for allowing an assessee to make a consolidated debit in the account current at the end of the day towards payment of duty if the assessee has removed more than 3000 consignments in the previous calendar year.4. Facts of the case are that the Commissioner had granted appellants permission under Rule 173G(1) [Proviso (ii)] to make a single debit entry by order dated 7-7-1995. However, by SCN dated 22-1-1997 they were asked to show cause as to why the earlier permission should not be withdrawn. After considering the reply to the sho...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Snow Cem India Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi dated 23-4-1996.2. Learned Departmental Representative stated that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of cement based paints and water proofing compounds. It was the Department's contention that they had wrongly availed the credit in question on the strength of the gate passes issued in favour of their Head Office at Bombay. The Commissioner (Appeals) had, however, allowed the benefit on the basis of an endorsed gate pass treating the later as a valid document although it has not been so prescribed by the Board under Rule 57H (as amended) and in terms of Notification No. 16/94, dated 30-3-1994, such gate pass is valid only if issued prior to 1-4-1994 whereas in the present case, it has been issued on 19-12-1994. The learned Commissioner has erred in relying on the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Siyaram Platex (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 915 (Tribunal) a...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jayshree Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT625TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR.2. This appeal arises out of a refund claim submitted by the respondent herein for Rs. 5,720.10. It relates to the period from 23-8-1985 to 18-12-1985. The claim was presented by the respondent before the Sector Officer on 12-5-1986 who, instead of returning it to the assessee, forwarded it to the Assistant Collector, the jurisdictional officer who received it on 2-12-1986. It was alleged by the respondent that supplies were being made earlier 6f the excisable goods to the buyer on the basis of a contract, the contract terminated on 22-2-1985, but supplies were continuing to be made on the understanding that fresh purchase order on fresh terms will be issued, that subsequently purchase order was issued on 30-9-1985 under which the price was slightly less than the price shown in the earlier contract, but, meanwhile, bills had been prepared fo...