Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

impact Advertising Pvt. Ltd. (M/S.) Vs. M/S. Thomson Press (India) Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)314; AIR2000Delhi173; 84(2000)DLT274; 2000(53)DRJ82

ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Judge, this appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant. It has been contended by Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel for the appellant that the finding of the Additional District Judge that there was no mention that the defendant/appellant was ready and willing to take steps for arbitration proceedings was wholly perverse. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has cited M/s. Srivenkateswara Constructions & Others Vs . Union of India, : AIR1974AP278 and Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd. AIR 1980 Goa 25. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Vijay Kishan, counsel for the respondent has contended that apart from the fact that there was no arbitration clause between the parties even in the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant has not averred that he was ready to submit for the jurisdiction of the arbitration after the commencement of th...

Yoginder Parkash Duggal Vs. Om Prakash Duggal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)567; 2000(53)DRJ601

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. I.A. 9014/95 is under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for substitution of legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 2; I.A. 8994/95 is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay and I.A. 9013/95 is for modification of the preliminary decree passed in the suit in view of the death of defendant No. 2. Deceased Smt. Vidyawati widow of Shri Sardari Lal Duggal had died on 6.2.1981 leaving behind two sons Yoginder Parkash Duggal and Om Prakash Duggal and a daughter Ms. Santosh Kumari Duggal (defendant No.2) as her legal representatives. She owned property No. F-254, Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Yoginder Prakash Duggal filed the suit for partition of the property claiming 1/3rd share in it. The plaintiff died during pendency of the proceedings and his widow Smt. Pratibha Duggal was substituted as his legal representative on 8.9.1989. As there was no dispute about the shares of the parties, a...

Mohd. Javed Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000CriLJ1821; 2000(56)DRJ156; 2000(68)ECC561

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order of conviction dated 5.12.1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 33/95 convicting the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 20.1.1995 at about 3 P.M. while the SI Dalbir Singh (P.W. 7) was on petrol duty he received a secret information that two persons having poppy straw powder would be coming to Delhi via Old Yamuna Bridge. On this, information a raiding party was organized and a 'nakabandi' was conducted near the Flood Control Tower. At about 3.30 A.M. the appellant and his associate Kala son of Karam Chand Bhagat were spotted near the said tower. The appellant was apprehended on the spo...

Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)628; [2000]100CompCas406(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT275; 2000(52)DRJ560

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The controversy involved in this petition is in a narrow compass. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of D.R. Mehta, respondent No. 2 as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short SEBI) vide notification issued by the Government of India and published in the official gazette on 17th February, 1995. Respondent No. 2 assumed office with effect from 21st February, 1995. SEBI was constituted vide an Act of Parliament, namely, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. As per its preamble the Act was meant to provide for establishment of a Board to promote interest of investors in securities and to promote the development of and to regulate the security market and for matters connected therewith. Chapter II of the Act deals with establishment of the Board. The Board is to consist of a Chairman and Members. According to Section 4(4) the Central Government has the power to appoint Chairman and the Members. It is in exercise of this...

Lic of India Vs. Sh. Vishnu Mohan Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)819; 84(2000)DLT42; 2000(52)DRJ732; (2000)124PLR67

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the judgment creditor in a mortgage action, is the petitioner in the revision petition. The petitioner filed the Suit No. 416/89 for the recovery of Rs. 70,617.80 on the strength of the mortgaged house by the defendant. The defendant contested the suit, let in evidence, filed documents, but did not appear at the time of the argument. The Court framed the following issues for determination :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 70,670-60 P. as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 15-1/2% compounding monthly from the date of filing of the suit till realisation? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs, fire insurance premium etc.? OPP 4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 2. On the second Issue, the learned Judge, who tried the suit, gave the following finding :- 'The amount of interest @ 15-1/2 % p.a. compounded monthly was payable under the mortgage deed a...

Krishan Lal Vs. Smt. Devki

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)868; 85(2000)DLT326; 2000(56)DRJ210

ORDER1. Admit. 2. The Petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under the provisions of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order dated 22nd September, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller in Suit No. E-976 of 1991. 3. The Respondent/landlady, along with her two sons, had earlier filed a petition for evicting the Petitioner/tenant from the same premises, as in this case, bearing No.XVII/2178/2, Khampur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit premises). This eviction petition (being Suit No. E-205 of 1991) was filed claiming the benefit of proviso (e) to Section 14(1) of the Act, namely, that the Petitioners therein required the premises bona fide for their residence. This Petition was dismissed by an order dated 4th July, 1991. 4. While dismissing the earlier eviction petition, the learned Additional Rent Controller, found that the present Respondent was the landlady of the suit premises which ...

Ram Lal Sharma Vs. State Minister for Communications and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 15.12.1999, passed by District Forum (New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. T.C./2662/98 - entitled Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v. State Minister for Communication, Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India and Ors. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Sh. Ram Lal Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, was that Telegraphic Money Orders, Money Orders, Registered Letters, Letters and Telegrams, sent by him were delivered late/not delivered by the concerned postal authorities and the authorities of the Telegraph Department. 3. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appea...

Baljeevan Karyalaya Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT393TriDel

1. These two appeals have been preferred against the common order in appeal dated 27-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide which he had confirmed the order in original dated 29-8-1996 of the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 7193.27 in all under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- on the appellants.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, may briefly be stated as under :- 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicine "Baljeavan Ghutti" classifiable under subheading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the course of checking of RT 12 returns filed by them for the months of June 1995 and October 1995 to December 1995, it revealed that they did not include the value of the gift items in the assessable value of the product for payment of the excise duty. They were accordingly issued two show cause notices one dated 26-4-1...

M/S. Narmada Extrusions Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Indore

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s Narmada Extrusion Ltd., the issue involved is whether Modvat credit is available in respect of cental Excise duty paid on H.S.D.2. When the matter was called, no was present on behalf of the appellants nor there was any request for adjournment. Shri A.K.Jain, learned D.R.mentioned that the matter is covered on all four by the decision of the Larger Bench of the tribunal is the case of Chemo Pulp Tissues Vs CCE., Meerut 2000(119) ELT 715(T-LB) and provisions of Section 112 of the Finance Act,2000. "Not with standing any thing contained in any rule of the Central Excise Rules 1944, no credit of any duty paid o high speed diesel oil at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day March, 1995 and ending with the day, the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President, shall be deemed to be admissible.4. In view of this provision contained in the Finance Act,the appellant is not eligible to avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on...

M/S. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Cce, Ghaziabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills is whether there was any excess quantity of molasses in the storage tank which is liable for confiscation and consequential imposition of penalty.2. Shri Kapil Vaish, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that on 5.11.97 when the Central Excise Officers checked the physical stock of molasses it was found to be 22,865 quintals as against book stock of 21,483 quintals; that the physical stock was measured by dip method which has its inherent weaknesses; that variation in stock of molasses is inevitable due to nature of the product. He referred to Handbook Cane Sugar Engineering by E. Hugot , according to which there may be variation in the weight of the molasses 10% to 15%. He relied upon the decision in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Kanpur, 1984 (72) ELT 710 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that ISI specification clearly indicate that 10% allowance always be given for foaming during storage of mola...