Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Arjan Singh Kalra Vs. Rajendra’s Promotors and Builders

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Arjan Singh Kalra, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, booked space in the basement of a building Complex called Rajendra Santoshi House at 3, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. The area booked was 123 sq. feet and the rate to be charged was Rs. 475/- per sq. foot. He paid Rs. 59,985 /- to the opposite party (O.P.) in lump sum. Instead of delivering the possession of the space booked the O.P. wrote to the complainant on 29th October, 1988 that for various reasons, stated in the letter, it was not possible to deliver the possession of the basement and if he wished, he could be allotted space on the ground floor on terms to be mutually settled. The complainant was thus compelled to agree to shift the booking to ground floor @ Rs. 900/- per sq. foot. The space to be provided was reduced to 66.65 sq. feet, in October, 1989. On 11.12.1989, the O.P. purported to deliver the possession of the space booked on the ground floor by the complainant. Case of the complai...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Brooke Bond Liptons (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)LC107Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 207-C.E./KNP/96, dated 27-9-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad allowing the appeal before him by M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., Bareilly, respondents herein and holding them to be eligible for refund in cash of duty paid by them in cash during the period 1981 to 1986 when the department had not permitted them the benefit of Notification No. 201/79 in respect of duty paid on two items, namely 58 mm closer caps and coproco adhesives. Originally both the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) had held that such a benefit was not available to them. Aggrieved with such a finding they had carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide order Nos. E/441 and 442/91-D, dated 31-10-1991, held them to be eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid Notification. Since, at that stage the said Notification had been rescinded, th...

Simplex Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT720TriDel

1. Shri K.V. Parmar, learned Consultant submits that the appearance on 16-1-1997 could not be entered by the appellants/applicants because they had not received the notice of hearing. He also submits that they did not receive even the order of dismissing their appeal for default.This has possibly happened due to shifting of their factory to Gandhinagar. In fact they had given the change in address as far back as in 1989. In the aforesaid circumstances, he prays for allowing the application for restoration of the appeal.2. Ld. JDR Shri M. Ali leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.3. Considered. ROA application is allowed in the aforesaid circumstances. Registry should take note of the new address mentioned in their present ROA application for future correspondence, if any.Appeal is restored to its original number and is fixed for hearing on 6-7-1998. No notice....

Shafiq-ur-rahman Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IAD(Delhi)405; 76(1998)DLT889; 2000(118)ELT576(Del)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs to the petitioner to show cause why 7200 cartons of cigarettes shipped from Imphal, Manipur for New Delhi be not confiscated and penalty be not imposed. The same having been illegally imported without there being a valid license for the purpose. The proceedings terminated into confiscation of Rs. 7,20,000/- realised from the auction of the cigarettes during the course of adjudication proceedings and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the CEGAT and moved an application under Section 129E of the Customs Act seeking waiver as to predeposit and stay of recovery. The Tribunal has by its impugned order dated 11.2.1996 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and subject to such deposit dispensing with recovery of the amount of penalty and stay of recovery proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. Time t...

Rajeev Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi384

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of IAs.10512/97 & 360/98 in S.No. 2414/97 and IAs. 11645 & 11717/97 in S.No. 2679/97.2. Suit No. 2414/97 has been filed by Rajeev Singh against Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh alleging that both the defendants are the owners of property No. 12, Krishna Market, Kalkaji, New Delhi and for sale thereof they entered into an agreement to sell dated 12th March, 1995 with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 5,20,000/-. Plaintiff paid Rs. 5,00,000/- to the defendants by means of three cheques on the date the agreement to sell was reduced into writing. It was stipulated in the aforesaid agreement that the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- will be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed by the defendants after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. However, on the persuasion of the defendants the plaintiff paid the said balance amount to them on 1st June, 1995 on which date the aforesaid agreement was...

Maniram Maurya Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)701; 1998(3)Crimes541; 75(1998)DLT86; 1999(48)DRJ660; 1998RLR492

ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of order dated dated 13.1.1998 passed in case FIR No. 925/97 under Section 366 IPC, P.S.Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi by Smt. Swaran Kanta Mehra, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, Mahila Court.2. By the impugned order one Shiv Kumari, daughter of the petitioner, has been directed to be released to her husband (respondent No.2) on furnishing a Super-digamma in the sum of rupees twenty five thousand with the condition that he will produce the prosecutrix as and when directed by the court.3. The petitioner had lodged the aforesaid FIR against respondent No.2 for having kidnapped Shiv Kumari which was registered under Section 366 IPC. On this FIR being registered, respondent No.2 was arrested and Shiv Kumari, the prosecutrix, was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. She was sent to Nari Niketan and respondent No.2 was released on bail by the court of Sessions. The petitione...

Parduman Kumar JaIn Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)741; 1998CriLJ3214; 73(1998)DLT277

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner's bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, Delhi on 4.3.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of bail in a case arising out of the FIR filed by CBI in a case under Section 120B read with Sections 420,465,467, 468,471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The Social Welfare Department of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi awarded contracts to Super Bazzar, Delhi for supplying high protein biscuits of specified quality and ground nuts to various Aganwaries in Delhi pursuant to a scheme for providing supplementary nutrition's to children and destitute mothers belonging to poor families.3. The Super Bazzar in turn awarded a contract to M/s. Mahamaya Foods, a partnership firm at Shahdara, Delhi. The petitioner P.K. Jain and accused Satpal Ahuja have been partners of M/s. Mahamaya Foods. The high protein biscuits were to be supplied in the...

Genuine Paints and Chemicals Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 73(1998)DLT296

Lokeshwar Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, named above, was awarded a contract by the respondent UOI on 6.8.1982 for the supply of 75,000 litres of plaint on terms and conditions incorporated in the Contract No. RGC-TP-6/RGC-803/PAOD/ RP/894 dated 6.8.1982. The contract in question contained an arbitration clause (Clause No. 24). Certain disputes and differences had arisen between the parties in connection with the above said contract and the petitioner filed an application (Suit No. 2447/88--Genuine Paints & Chemicals v. UOI) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer to direct the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the Court and for reference of disputes for arbitration. The above said petition, filed by the petitioner, was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.2.1989 passed in Suit No. 2447/88 entitled Genuine Paints & Chemicals v. UOI and it was directed that the arbitration agreement filed in the Court and th...

Soman Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Satyam Soman Tak

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Satyam Soman Tak, complainant for short, booked a plot in pursuance of advertisements issued by the opposite party (OP). He was allotted Plot No. 1665 (C) measuring 100 sq. yards at Kong Post Enclave, Jainnagar, Qutubgarh Road, Delhi by allotment letter dated 27.1.1993. He deposited 25% of the sale consideration totalling Rs. 13,000/- besides Rs. 500/- as processing charges regarding which the opp. party issued two receipts dated 26.1.1993 and 27.1.1993. No development charges were to be paid over and above the price charged from the buyer. Possession of the plot was to be delivered on payment of 25% of the price and the balance was recoverable in 11 monthly instalments with interest @ 10%. According to the scheme, the plot buyer was to be delivered immediate possession of the fully developed plots with metal roads, schools, shopping complex, parks, medical facilities, telephone, water, electricity, services of DTC and private buses, etc. Possession was...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Modi Xerox Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT683TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Department the issue involved is whether dryer with prefilter and postfilter erected in photoreceptor room is capital goods or not under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. DR refers to the decision in the case of CCE, Coitnbatore v. Shanmuga Raja Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 848 and submits that the issue regarding restricted nature of definition of the capital goods and retrospective effect of amendments made in Rule 57Q have been referred to the Larger Bench. He, therefore, submits that present appeal may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the Larger Bench. While the ld.Representative of the Respondents submits that the issue involved has been settled by the Tribunal in their own case as per Final Order No.A/410-411/97-NB in Appeal No. E/1577 & 1594/95-NB. He also mentioned that one of the items involved in this order was Thermohygrograph which is part of the plan...