Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments

Trafalgar House Const. India Ltd. Vs. Western India Shipyard Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)445; [2001]103CompCas918(Delhi); 81(1999)DLT707; 1999(51)DRJ228

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioners Trafalgar House Construction India Limited filed a Company Petition in September, 1996 against the respondents Western India Shipyard Limited. In the petition it is mentioned that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioners in a sum of Rs.357.94Lakhs as per particulars of claim, Exhibit 'A' Along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date thereof till payment. C.P. NO. 264/962. It is incorporated in the petition that the petitioners submitted a tender of civil work pertaining to strengthening of the existing quay wall to the respondent-company. The said tender was accepted by the company vide its letter dated 6th October, 1993 and the contract was awarded to the petitioner. The said work was duly completed in all respects to the satisfaction of the respondent company. The respondent company accepted the said work without raising any disputes to the quality or as to the time taken by the petitioners in completing the work. The re...

Neena Sarna Vs. Dr. K.D. Nagrath and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)537; 81(1999)DLT608; 1999(51)DRJ238; 1999RLR510

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, the tenant preferred this Civil Misc. (Main), under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The short controversy is that the petitioner was served on 27.5.1994, whereas application for leave to defend was filed on 17.1.1995. As there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for leave to defend, the Addl. Rent Controller held that as the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings before him, the delay cannot be condoned and dismissed the application for condo-nation of delay. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of Mukri Gopalan Vs . Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker : AIR1995SC2272 and Smt. Kamal Bhandari Vs . Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra : AIR1982Delhi102 , the Addl. Rent Controller is a Court and the provision of Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings instituted under Rent Control Laws. 2. On...

K.D. Nagrath (Dr.) Vs. Mrs. Neena Sarna and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)589; 81(1999)DLT610; ILR1999Delhi500; 1999RLR522

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the dismissal of eviction petition, which was filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, by petitioner who is a Doctor at present residing in United Kingdom. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1994. Leave to contest was granted to respondent No. 3. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition of the landlord on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bone fide. It was held that the petitioner was owner. It was also held that the premises were let out for residential purposes. There is no dispute with regard to the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner in the demises premises. The accommodation available to the petitioner is two bed rooms with attached bath room, kitchen and drowning room and open verandah in the front and rear on the ground floor and one Barsati room on the terrace. The tenant is in occupation of the first floor. T...

K.B. Rajoria Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)591; 82(1999)DLT666; 1999(51)DRJ748

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The question which is posed to be answered in this writ petition is; What does 'regular service in a cadre' stands for? Does it amount to qualifying service or amounts to experience in the service? Can fixing of notional pay or for that matter notional promotion count as 'regular service'2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner as set up by him is that he joined the Central Public Works Department (in short (CPWD) in September, 1963 as Assistant Executive Engineer in December, 1966 and then promoted as Executive Engineer in December, 1966 and then to the post of Superintending Engineer in April, 1976. He was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) and his seniority was fixed w.e.f. August, 1989. On the other hand respondent No.4 joined CPWD as Assistant Engineer in Electrical and Mechanical stream of engineering in September, 1963. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in Apr...

iqbal Kaur Vs. Shri W. Shaiza, Appellate Authority and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)660; 81(1999)DLT821

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions C.W.P. No. 1845/87 and C.W.P. No. 1848/87. The first petition was filed by the petitioner to impugn the order dated 11th September, 1979 of the Competent Authority as framed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Order dated 4th June 1980 of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also challenged notification dated 20th November, 1985 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. The second petition has challenged the rejection of application of the petitioner vide Order dated 1st April, 1987 by the respondent for grant of exemption under Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner and her sons are stated to be living in House No. 61/17, Ramjas Road , Karol Bagh, New Delhi which belongs to them. It is further submitted that in 1967, two residential plots bearing Nos. F-221 and F-222 admeasuring 800 sq. yds. each in the approved colony of Mansarovar G...

Rollatainers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)69TTJ(Del)8

ORDERM.K. Chaturvedi, J.M.:This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-111, New Delhi, and relates to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The following three grounds taken in this appeal are reproduced here as under :'1.1 That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in Confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating Rs. 49,741 as prior period expenses.1.2 That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in observing, inter alia, that the liability in respect the aforesaid expenditure crystallised during the assessment year 1989-90, 'because all actions relating to accrual of liability had been undertaken or done during that previous year.2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the expenditure on rent, repairs and depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,32,434 under section 37(4).3. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on fact and in law in not holding that other income amounting to Rs. 8...

Smt. Suhasini Sharma Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the District Forum No. IV, dated 23.6.1997, in Case No. 248/96 entitled Mrs. Suhasini Sharma v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that she is a freelance translator and her livelihood depends on being available on the telephone. It is alleged that her telephone started remaining out of order frequently, and one lineman named Mr. Sharma was causing the harassment by dis-connecting and re-connecting the appellants telephone periodically. It is also submitted that her telephone remained out of order from 1.7.1995 to 11.7.1995 and, therefore, she filed a complaint before the learned District Forum praying for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment, as well as Rs. 20,000/- on account of loss of income. 3. The respondent/M.T.N.L. in their written statement, filed before the District Forum, denied all the above mentioned allegations...

Mahamaya Paints and Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT170TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Mahamaya Paints & Chemicals, the matter relates to the eligibility to the benefit of Notification No.75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 in respect of the thinners manufactured out of toluene, benzene etc. which were received on concessional rate of duty under Chapter X procedure. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, had taken a view that the assessee had used the toluene, benzene etc. not in the manufacture of paints and varnishes but in the manufacture of thinners which were cleared as such without being used in the manufacture of paints and varnishes.2. Appearing for the appellants, Shri S.D. Gaur, Consultant, submitted that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. C.C.E., Calcutta-II -1997 (95) E.L.T. 555 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had analysed the notification aforesaid, and had taken a view that the thinners were covered by the expression 'allied materials' against Serial No. 9 of the ta...

Beekay Engineering Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT614TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal Nos.706-708/Appeal/Indore/93, dated 29-7-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the impugned order Collector (Appeals) held that the Cooling plates/plate cooler are classifiable under Heading 84.17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the blast furnace of Integrated Steel Plant are erected at site so the cooling plates/plate coolers cannot be said to be parts of blast furnace. He submitted that in the case of Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 Hon'ble S.C., has held that anything that enters into or form part of manufacturing process or is required to make article marketable must be deemed to be raw material for component part of any product. He submitted that the Cooling plates/Plate coolers are not parts of blast furnace but are accessories. He, therefore, submitted that appeal be allowed.3. The ld. DR appearing on behalf of t...

Continental Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC652

1. These are following three appeals involving common issue whether the waste oil imported by the Importers is classifiable under Heading 38.23 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act or under Heading 34.03 as Waste Lubricating Oil.C/39 and 42/95-C filed by M/s. Continental Petroleum Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 486 to 498/94, dated 11-10-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals).C/231/93-C filed by Collector of Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad against the Order-in-Original Nos. 3/Addl. Collr./92, dated 20-1-1992 passed by the Additional Collector.2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Continental Petroleum Ltd. imported waste oil which was classified by them under Heading 28.23 of C.T.A. The Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading 3403.19 of C.T.A. and Confirmed the demand for Customs Duty, holding that the impugned product was primarily a product containing petroleum oil or oils obtained from Bituminous material and their product has the basic ch...