Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments

Harbans Lal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)199; 81(1999)DLT73; (1999)123PLR4

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned Award No. 1958 dated March 16, 1967 of village Malikpur Kohi and/or for declaring the same wholly wrongful, illegal, ultra vires, void and without jurisdiction, inoperative and unenforceable. The copy of the Award has been filed as Annexure A to the writ petition.2. The respondents acquired large tracts of land including the land of the petitioner vide Notification No. F. 4(98)/64-L&H; issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on January 23, 1965 and subsequent declaration under Section 6 vide notification No. F. 4(98)/64-L&H; dated September 6, 1996. The Land Acquisition Collector on March 16, 1967 rendered his Award but did not award any com-pensation for factory building lying constructed on the land of the petitioner. The relevant portions relating to the structures are referred to in...

Federation of Ashok Vihar Residents Welfare Ass. (Regd.) Vs. Union of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)519

ORDERS.N. Variava. CJ.1. This LPA is against the Order dated 27.5.94. By this Judgment a number of Writ Petitions were disposed of. All the Writ Petitions had been filed challenging the conversion fees fixed for converting the leasehold interest in lands in Delhi into freehold interest. Lands belonging to the Government had been allotted to several persons either directly or through in group housing societies or by the DDA. All the allottees had executed Lease Deeds which were generally for a period of 99 years. Under the Lease Deeds certain restrictions were imposed about the manner in which the land could be used, as well as regarding alienation of the leasehold property by the lessee. Except in cases of allottees under the rehabilitation scheme, whenever the original allottee alienated his interest, 50% of the unearned increase had to be paid to the Government. These conditions applied to subsequent alienations also. In cases of allottees under the rehabilitation scheme, the first t...

State Commission, Delhi Vs. Ram Singh Pathak and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. It has been brought to our notice that one of our District Forums, very recently, vide order dated 2.2.1999, passed in Complaint Case No. 41/98 entitled Shri Ram Singh Pathak v. Dagar Gas Service and Ors., has directed the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages for mental agony, caused to the complainant and Rs. 500/- towards costs. In the above said case, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Commission) has been arrayed as one of the opposite parties (opposite party No. 3). 2. On coming to know the above facts, this Commission sent for the records of the District Forum, relating to the abovesaid case and perused the same. On a perusal of order dated 2.2.1999, passed in the abovesaid case, it was noticed by this Commission that the operative part of the order of the District Forum directed the respondents, including the MRTP Commission (opposite party No. 3) to...

Anil Gupta and Others Vs. Delhi Cantonment Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. All the above mentioned seven appeals are directed against a common order, passed by the learned District Forum No. III in Complaint Case Nos. 25/97 entitled Shri Pramod Dhawan v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 26/97 entitled Smt. Meera Bai v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 27/97, entitled Shri Anil Gupta v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 28/97 entitled Shri Jitender Kukreja v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 29/97 entitled Shri Anil Raizada v. Delhi Cantonment Board; 30/97, entitled Shri Satish Kumar Jain v. Delhi Cantonment Board; and 389/97 entitled Shri D.S. Minhas v. Delhi Cantonment Board. By the common order, being impugned in the present proceedings, the learned District Forum has dismissed the seven complaints, filed by the above mentioned seven appellants before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Since all the seven appeals, arise out of a common order and have common facts, involving common que...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Nipion Gas and Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT633TriDel

1. Learned Advocates for the assessees in these cases have urged that their cases involve admissibility of Modvat credit on capital goods.Question involved is regarding proper construction of Rule 57Q, as it stood at that time. All of them have urged that their cases are fully covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore and Ors. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47. Respective consultants and advocates have, therefore, urged that the appeals of Revenue be dismissed and the appeals of assessees, namely, in the subject cases be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants/assessees.2. Opposing the contentions, learned JDR, Shri D.K. Nayyar submits that the judgment of Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills has not taken into account an argument which he is now putting forward. His submission is that the expression "plant, machines, machinery etc." in Rule 57Q is akin to Note 5 of Section XVI of the CETA, 1985. It is, therefore, ...

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC287

1. These are two stay applications filed by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. praying for waiving pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 5,31,23,646 and penalty amount of Rs. 6 lakh.2. Shri G. Shiv Das, Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants submitted that the goods involved are magnesite bricks and other refractory materials. These magnesite bricks and refractory material are used in lining of the furnace for producing iron and steel. He referred to the provisions of Notification No. 281/86-CE dated 24.4.86 and submitted that these goods have been manufactured in a workshop and had been used for maintenance of the furnace. It was his submission that the various Tribunal's decisions and extended meaning had been given to the "workshop" and in effect when the goods are manufactured in the factory and they are used for repairs and maintenance of the machine they are eligible for the benefit of the said Notification. It was his plea that the furnace was a machinery. He also makes a...

Dabur India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT835TriDel

1. We are concerned herein this case the admissibility of Modvat credit on "spares for V.P. 120 machine, SK 3035 type ring, special 1/16" 1.5 type and Benn D.C. motors." The lower authority has denied the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q claimed by the appellants as capital goods on the following grounds :- "Goods in question on which Modvat credit have been allowed under Rule 57Q by the Adjudicating Authority are used for cartoning the bottles viz. finished products, and rings and motors are spare for the machines which is used for putting the bottles in cartons. In other words instead of packing the goods in carton manually, the same is done by a machine perhaps to save labour and time, but such machines cannot be said to participate in 'manufacturing' of goods as there activities are clearly post manufacturing activities for marketing the goods. Therefore, in my opinion they cannot be considered as capital goods under Rule 67Q. The order of the Adjudicating Authority is set ...

Devi Charan Gupta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)443; 80(1999)DLT801

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 16th March, 1998 passed by Shri Rajinder Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi framing a charge against the petitioner under Sections 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379, IPC. 3. Shown on verbiage, facts giving rise to the petition are as under: On 1st September, 1989, factory premises belonging to M/s. India Wires General Mills (P) Ltd., 55 Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, New Delhi was inspected by officials of respondent No. 2 and it was discovered that full seal of meter terminal box was tampered with. On 13.9.1989 Shri S.K. Katyal, E. No. 2953 A.E. Zone 1301 D.E.S.U. (D) M.T.N, lodged a written report at the police station as a result whereof F.I.R. No. 578/ 89 was registered under Sections 39/44, I.E. Act read with Section 379, IPC at Police Station, Moti Nagar, Delhi. On completion of investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under the a...

Combatta Aviation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(68)ECC52; 2000LC390(Delhi); 2000(115)ELT622(Del)

Arun Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged imposition of penalty for delay in deposit of Foreign Travel Tax (for short FTT) and in filing the return with respect thereto.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner who is engaged in travel business, has been authorised to collect Foreign Travel Tax livable under [sub-section] (1) of Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1979, read with Notification No. 4/ FTT/ 79, dated 16th June, 1979 issued under [sub-section] (2) of Section 35 of the said Act. As per Rule 4 of the FTT Rules, 1979 (as amended), the carrier is required to deposit the tax collected in any month into the Government Treasury form 2 in respect of every month before the expiry of 30 days from the end of the month. As per Rule 9 the carrier is required to submit a return in form 2 in respect of every month before the expiry of 30 days from the end of the month showing the particulars of flight operated, number of passengers carried, amount of tax collected and paid into...

Seth Alloys Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT492TriDel

1. Learned Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of demand of Rs. 30,96,775/- adjudged by adjudicating authority, namely concerned Commissioner. Learned Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal submits that this demand of duty has been raised ignoring the applicant/appellant's contention that the unit remained closed during the aforesaid entire period (April 1998 to Sept. 1998) as mentioned by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice. In this connection he draws our attention to para 4 of his reply to the show cause notice. It is reproduced below; :- "It is on your record that we have been informing the Department about the time and period of the unit being non-functional and not producing the said goods along with' the Electricity Meter Readings and the reasons for closure and according to Rule 96ZO (2), the said duty is not required to be paid for the said period when there is no production. It is regretted that the Asstt. Commissioner without ...