Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant obtained cable connection from the opposite partys Cable T.V. Network. According to the complainant, in January, 1996, the said cable remained disconnected for four days in a row and again in December, 1996 the cable gave away and was not set-right for days together inspite of the matter having been reported to the opposite party. Lastly, according to the complainant, the charges made by the opposite party were enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- in January, 1997 without any justification. 2. The opposite party failed to appear before the District Forum and contest the claim. The District Forum held that the question of charges for cable service were not regulated by law and raising of charges could not, therefore, be gone into in the present proceedings. With regard to the other averments of the complainant, it was observed that the complainant must have normally lodged a complaint in writing with the cable ope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT567TriDel
1.2 The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 9 Nos. of low pressure pumps claiming classification under Tariff Heading 8413.50 with benefit of Notification No. 59/87-Cus. The certificate of origin submitted by the appellants along with the Bill of Entry described the goods as "Airless Paint to be as declared and the catalogue also described the goods as declared for Model No. PPL-1153 with a pump ratio 3 :1 as per catalogue. 1.3 The Revenue however, felt that the said pump was for spraying only and is part of "Airless Spraying Equipment". Therefore, as per Note 2 of Section XVI, there is a dispute as to whether it is to be assessed as under Heading 84.13 as claimed by the appellants or as a part of Spraying Equipment under Heading 84.24. 1.4 Investigation further revealed that the appellants had imported spray guns, fluid regulators and air caps of the said Spraying Equipment under three Bills of Entry Nos. 2720,2719 and 2718 dated 9-3-1992. It was further felt by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999(50)DRJ97
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. In response to the invitation of tender floated by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner submitted his tender for supply of Plaything Pipes and the said tender of the petitioner was accepted and the parties entered into a contract dated 17.5.1978. However, disputes and differences in respect of and in relation to the aforesaid contract arose between the parties and, thereforee, in terms of the arbitration agreement included therein, the entire disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2.2. The respondent No. 2 entered into the reference and upon hearing the parties made and published his award on 15.10.1985. The said award of the arbitrator has been filed in this Court in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act.3. After receipt of the aforesaid award in this Court, the respondent No. 1 has filed an objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act on which I have heard the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(Delhi)373; 1999CriLJ207; 1999(49)DRJ46; ILR1998Delhi693
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Session Judge dated August 8, 1995 whereby the order of the trial Court dated June 24, 1993, dismissing the application of the first respondent under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was set aside. The allegations on the basis of which the petitioner filed the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:2. On November 3, 1992 at about 9 a.m. a police party headed by S.I. Sunder Lal of police post Yamuna Vihar, Delhi rang the bell of House No. C-12/464, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. The door was opened by one Sachin. As soon as the door was opened by Sachin, S.I. Sunder Lal and other members of the police party started beating him. The complainant-petitioner Ritesh Kumar who was present in the house of Sachin Protested to S.I. Sunder Lal against the beating of Sachin. S.I. Sunder Lal not liking the intervention of the complainant, caught hold of him and dragged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT97
Devinder Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who is an Italian citizen who had been working as Regional Director of M/s. Sham Progetti in India and is presently residing and conducting business at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), filed this petition on 24.3.1998 under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') praying for setting aside order the (Annexure-B) passed on 6.2.1997 by Shri Ajit Bharioke, Special judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi directing issuance of non-bailable warrants of the petitioner's arrest in connection with RC 1(A)/90-ACU-IV SPC, C.B.I., New Delhi on allowing the application (Annexure-A) moved by the respondent.2. The respondent in its application prayed for issuance of non-bailable warrants of the petitioner's arrest, alleging that the aforementioned case (RC1(A)/ 90-ACU-IV SPE, C.B.I. New Delhi) was registered on 22.1.1990 on the basis of sources, certain facts and circumstances th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 75(1998)DLT691
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. In the matter of disputes which had arisen between the parties under Agreement No. 15/EE/HD-X-9-10/ DDA/80-81, Mr. H.C. Sharma, Superintending Engineer (Plan Survey IV), Delhi Development Authority was appointed as Arbitrator. Reference having been made to him and the parties having submitted their submissions before him the Arbitrator on 5th August 1988 made and published his award. The award was caused to be filed in this Court on 10th August, 1988.2. Notice of the riling of the award was issued to the parties. The respondent was served with the notice of filing of the award on 31.10.1988. While the petitioner did not file objections to the award, the respondent on 30th November, 1988 filed his objections. This objection petition comprised of only one page and did not mention anything as to what was the objection of the Delhi Development Authority to the award and as to why the same was liable to be set aside. The objections were signed by Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)465; 74(1998)DLT858
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the transfer order dated 22.08.1998 transferring the petitioner as Sr.Manager Engineering on promotion to a place called Arvi in the state of Maharashtra. The petitioner is now a Senior Manager Engineering. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the order of transfer is against the Policy of Transfer issued by the respondent on 03.01.1996. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the transfer policy an officer who had undergone three transfers shall not normally be transferred. If on promotion inspire of three transfers an officer shall not be transferred and if there is a vacancy in the promotion post in the place where he is serving at the time of promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vipin Sanghi submitted the fact that the petitioner has undergone three transfers is not disputed. While transferring the petitioner on promotion as Senior Manage...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)LC521Tri(Delhi)
The short point involved in this appeal is whether the cost of capsule used for closing the metal container in which the biscuits are packed is to be excluded from the value of excisable goods under the provisions of Notification 34/82.2. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR submitted that under Notification 34/82 duty was not chargeable in respect of the value representing cost of metal containers in which the excisable goods were packed at the time of their removal from the factory; that the biscuits manufactured by the respondents were packed in metal containers and the capsule was only an accessory and therefore the cost of such accessory was not covered by the said notification.3. Shri S.S. Mehra, Consultant submitted that the use of capsule was very necessary for the purpose of packing biscuits otherwise biscuits would get damaged during transit.4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and we find that Notification 34/82 exempts payment of duty on that part of the value which repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1999]235ITR31(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. For the assessment year 1981-82, the following questions of law have been referred at the instance of the Revenue by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that cash compensatory support received by the assessed is not taxable as income 12. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not holding that duty drawback (Rs. 6,28,395) ; profit on sale of import entitlements (Rs. 2,24,870) and profit on sale of imported material (Rs. 11,477) are capital receipts not liable to tax ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that bank commission (Rs. 39,378) ; freight, octroi and insurance (Rs. 9,09,148) ; packing expenses (Rs. 8,93,675) and interest other than interest on pre-shipment credit is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35B of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. K.E. Moses, complainant, opened an NSS Account in Gol Dak Khana Post Office on 28.2.1990. The credit Balance became due for payment on 2.4.1993. The complainant needed the money badly and he waited in the queue of people waiting to receive the money in their accounts. On 3.4.1993 the complainant applied to Shri Ram Tirath Nagar Post Office for transfer of the account from Gol Dak Khana to the said Post Office. He also deposited his Pass Book alongwith application for transfer. He made enquiries every day from the SRT Nagar Post Office only to be told that the account had not been transferred to that Post Office. On 19.4.1993, on advice from the Post Master, SRT Post Office, he made an application which, together with necessary endorsement, was personally carried by the complainant to Gol Dak Khana (GDK) where the complainant met the Chief Post Master. The complainant was asked to fill-in from 16A and get the same counter...
Tag this Judgment!