Delhi Court September 1997 Judgments

Gurinder Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)581; 1998(1)ARBLR96(Delhi); 1998(44)DRJ476

Vijender Jain, J. (1) It has been contended by learned counsel for the Dda that award under claim no.3 by the Arbitrator regarding refund of Rs.98,000.00 is bad and violates the terms of the agreement and that part of the award be sent aside. Ms.Salwan has contended that the contractor had agreed to give rebate on road rollers and bitumen vide his letter dated 19.9.1984. She has contended that at that relevant time, the bitumen was cheaper in open market then the rate at which it was given by DDA. thereforee, the contractor had written to the Chief Engineer of the respondent that he was prepared to supply bitumen by procuring it from outside sources at a cheaper rate and for that reason, he gave rebate of 4% on bitumen as well as for using his own road rollers. However, respondent by their letter dated 29.9.1984 categorically stated that work had been accepted by the respondent at the rate of 40.81% above the estimated cost of Rs.8,89,599.00 and thereafter in the said letter it has bee...

Kanwal Jeet Arora Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)265; 69(1997)DLT431; 1997(43)DRJ321; 1997RLR660

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The petitioner is a young Metropolitan Magistrate still measuring his wings while respondent No. 2 is an Additional Sessions Judge having weathered many a seasons of judicial life, Unfortunately, in a judicial order, respondent No. 2 has passed certain remarks against the petitioner. While the petitioner has found them unpalatable and has prayed for their expunction, the State too has found them indefensible. (2) It so happened that on an application of the State for cancellation of an F.I.R. the petitioner took cognizance and passed an order for summoning of the accused. Aggrieved by that order the accused persons preferred a criminal revision. An Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order with a direction to the petitioner to reconsider the matter, and to spell out the offences of which he had taken the cognizance 'with reasoned order and also to what persuaded him not to accept the police report.' Consequent upon that order, the petitioner passed an order, the...

Sardar Gurcharan Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)952; 69(1997)DLT349

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The petitioner has filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: (I)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Notification No. 7(58)/ 62- C8H dated the 15th September, 1962 (published in Part Iv of Delhi Gazette on the 27th September, 1962) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act in so far as it violates to the land which was acquired from the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to use the land comprised in the premises known as I, Factory Road, New Delhi - 110029, for a purpose different from and/or unrelated to the purpose for which the same was acquired. (iii) Quash the allotment made by the respondents. Nos. 1 to 5 of any part of the land comprised in the premises now known as 2 Factory Road, to respondents Nos 6, 7 and 8 or to any other i...

Anita Shinh (Chauhan) and anr. Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT41

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This order will govern the disposal of I.A. Nos. 4924/96, 8868/96 and 9193/96. (2) I.A. No. 4924/96 under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Cpc has been filed by the plaintiffs alleging that Sunil Chauhan, husband of plaintiff No. I and father of minor plaintiffs 2 and 3, was the owner of 1 /3rd share in house No. 6199, Gali No. 1, Block No. 1, Karol Bagh Along with defendants 1 and 2. Defendants have threatened the plaintiffs to leave the second floor portion of the aforesaid house to enable them to sell it to a third party. Defendants have no right to alienate the house. It was prayed that by issue of an ad interim injunction defendants be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the second floor portion of aforementioned house. Defendants are further sought to be restrained from alienating, mortgaging or parting with possession of the house. (3) Defendants have contested the application by filing a joint reply. It is al...

E.M.A. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT150TriDel

1. All these appeals are directed against common Order-in-Appeal, dated 31-3-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants imported, under 5 Bills of Entries, consignments which were described in the Bill of Entries as components for honing machines.These were assessed to duty under CTH 8466 with benefit of exemption Notification No. 181/87, dated 29-4-1987. The appellants subsequently filed a refund claim claiming benefit of exemption under Notification 156/86, dated 1-3-1986. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Their claim for benefit of auxiliary duty under Notification 159/88, dated 13-5-1988 which would accrue to them once benefit is held due under Notification 156/86 was also rejected.2. The learned Advocate submits that the goods have been assessed to duty as parts of honing machines classifiable under Heading 84.60 and therefore, the parts would be classifiable under Heading 84.66. Benefit...

Perfect Electric Concern P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT79TriDel

1. The issue for determination in the present appeal which arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta is the classification of different types of switches such as electro magnetic relay, ignition-cum-starter switch, reverse lamp switch, assembly engine lamp, wiper blade, horn, etc. - the appellants claim that the above articles are covered by Sub-heading 8708 while the Department has confirmed classification under Heading 8511.00, 8512.00 and 8536.00.2. We find that in the appellants' own case as reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 622, the Tribunal has upheld the classification as determined by the Department under Chapter 85 for different types of electrical switches for motor vehicles and rejected the claim of the assessees for classification tinder Heading 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The learned Counsel seeks to distinguish this decision on the ground that it has not considered Note l(k) which excludes articles of Section XV...

Masters Tobacco Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT326TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. PPM-1470/ N- 1/725/87, dated 2-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Arguing for the appellants, Sh. Ravinder Narain, ld. Advocate submitted that the dispute is in respect of secondary packing i.e.corrugated fibre board. He said that cigarettes are first packed in packets, which in turn, are further packed in outers and cigarettes are delivered to wholesale dealers only in outers/cartons and the cigarettes packed in outers are, further, packed in CFCs on the specific request of wholesale dealers. He contended that the CFCs are neither necessary nor essential as a packing for the purpose of sale of cigarettes to the wholesale dealers for a secondary packing supplied at the request of the wholesale dealers. He submitted that this issue has already been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T....

Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IAD(Delhi)986; 71(1998)DLT182; 1998(98)ELT311(Del)

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1.The petitioner/accessee is manufacturer of printed cartons and had been paying excise duty on the printed cartons under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise since 1975. The petitioner submitted a revised classification list No. 29/78 on 15th May, 1978 with a representation that printed carton should be exempted from duty under Tariff Item No. 68 since these were products of printing industry and, thereforee, eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75 dated lst March, 1975 as amended by Notification No. 114/75 dated 30th April, 1975 and 122/75 dated 5th May, 1975. The Assistant Collector, Faridabad, held that the benefit of exemption claim was not admissible. In appeal, however, the Appellate Collector held that the petitioner manufactured printed cartons and not merely cartons used for packing of goods and as such these goods were to be treated as products of printing industry and thus eligible for exemption from payment of duty. The Appellate Collector ord...

C. Ruthnawamy Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT451

Usha Mehra, J.(1) RULE. (2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent thereby not considering his candidature for the post of Vice President on the ground that he was not eligible. thereforee, the question which has been raised in this writ petition is whether the service rendered by the petitioner in officiating capacity as General Manager w.e.f. 10th September, 1992 should be counted or not for the purpose of eligibility. (3) In order to answer this question we may have few of the relevant facts in consideration. The petitioner joined as Deputy General Manager in the pay scale of the Rs. 3700-5700 on 1st December, 1984 with the Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the Corporation). He completed five years services Deputy General Manager on 1st December, 1989. He thus became eligible and fulfillled the required eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of General Manager. On 10th September, 1992 the Corporation appointed him as General...

M/S. J.M. Ramchandra and Co. Vs. M/S. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. and Other ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Ved Prakash, partner of M/s. J.M. Ramchandran and Co., a partnership concern, booked one Peugeot 309 car with M/s. Delhi Automobiles Ltd., opposite party-1 in October '95 by depositing a draft for Rs. 25,000/-. He paid a sum of Rs. 4,41,054/- on 20.7.96, which was encashed on 23.7.96. According to the complainant, opposite party failed to deliver the car within the time agreed to earlier even though the complainant paid several visits to them to expedite the delivery of the car. Having failed to get the delivery of the car, the complainant cancelled the order and asked for refund of the amount paid by him besides the booking amount with interest. The booking was transferred from the name of Mr. Ved Prakash in favour of the said partnership firm at his request. The opposite party issued two cheques both dated 18.12.96 for Rs. 4,41,054.22 and Rs. 25,440/- on account of amount deposited and interest @ 18% p.a. from 23.7.96 ...