Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Vikas Agarwal Vs. Ms. Anubha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1064; 90(2001)DLT801; I(2001)DMC676; 2000(56)DRJ485

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 24th August, 2000 passed by learned Single Judge whereby on account of consistent failure on the part of the appellant to appear before the Court inspire of specific direction in that behalf, the defense of the appellant was struck off. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that such an order could not have been passed under Order X Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has drawn our attention to the various Rules forming part of Order X of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the conduct of the appellant has been such that he does not deserve any indulgence from the Court. He has sought to justify the impugned order by highlighting the conduct of the appellant. He has placed before us a compilation containing various orders passed by the learned Single Judge from time to time in...

Brhampal and Others Vs. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1111; [2001(88)FLR951]

ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have been praying for relief of commanding respondent no.1 to regularise services of the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their joining and grant them all consequential benefits arising there from. 2. Mr. J.C. Seth, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 has objected to the maintainability of the present writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 that the petitioner through their union had earlier filed C.W.P.No.2202/91 wherein the petitioners had prayed for regularisation of their services; that vide order dated 3.3.1992, the Division Bench of this High Court has dismissed the writ petition as the reference under the Industrial Act then was pending before the Industrial Tribunal for regularisation of services of the employees of BHEL; that the petitioners did not go to the Tribunal and did not join the said reference pending and have filed the...

Sanjay Rajendra Sharma @ Sunil Chhibber Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1132; 2001CriLJ298; 88(2000)DLT458; 2000(55)DRJ660; 2000(72)ECC583; 2001(1)JCC43

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The petitioner, Sanjay Rajinder Sharma Sunil Chhibber has assailed the detention order dated 30th August, 1999 which was served on him on 21st September, 1999. It was confirmed by the Central Government on 25th November, 1999 under Section 9(f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the PITNDPS Act) for one year. The said order has been assailed on many grounds but during arguments counsel for the petitioner restricted the challenge primarily on two grounds, namely, (1) that the impugned detention order amounted to double detention; and (2) that there is an unexplained delay in disposal of his representation which is vocative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 2. In order to appreciate the above challenge we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. Petitioner was arrested on 24th February,1999 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act on the ground that he was carrying heroin 2....

Preeti Gupta and ors. Vs. Rajendra Prahladkar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(24)PTC64(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J.S. No. 2316/2000 1. Let the plaint be registered.2. Issue summons to Defendants both by ordinary process as well as registered A.D. post, on Plaintiff's filing process fee and registered A.D. covers, returnable by 19th February, 2001.I.A. No. 10871/2000 3. Notice for the date fixed.4. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs has drawn my attention to the fact that thedesign of the picture photo frames of the Plaintiff has been duly registered. The certificates of these photo frames are available on page Nos. 1 to 49 of the documents.Learned counsel further draws attention to the photographs on page No. 60 whichphotographs, he states that, were taken with great difficulty because of the obstruction by the Defendants. It is submitted that the photo frames shown on these pagesare clear copies/imitation of the Plaintiffs registered designs. It is further stated thatDefendant No. 2 was an employee of the Plaintiff and in support of this contentionlearned counsel has relied on th...

R.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)4CompLJ371(Del)

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. As only a short point is involved with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. The main ground of challenge to the Scheme, viz. Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2000, urged by counsel for the petitioner, is that it enabled the respondent authorities to pass orders in an arbitrary manner. Learned counsel had urged that the authorities were not obliged to give any reasons for the orders being passed. Moreover, he submitted, that the notification issued prescribed fixed amounts that are payable for different periods of delay in furnishing the documents, which obviated the need for giving of reasons. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has sought instructions. He allays the apprehension of the petitioner in this regard. Counsel for the respondents had submitted that respondents have amended the prescribed proforma of the certificate granting immunity from penalty. As a result of amendment in the prescribed proforma, reasons are no...

Ms. Sushil Kumari Vs. East End Co-op. G/H Society Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, named above, has filed the present complaint averring that the complainant is a member of opposite party No. 1 which is a Co-operative Society, duly registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As per the case of the complainant, certain disputes had arisen between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 which were referred to Arbitration by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Arbitrator, to whom the disputes were referred for purposes of adjudication, gave award dated 10.7.1998 in favour of the complainant. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that despite award being given in her favour by the Arbitrator no relief to her in terms of the award has been given. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and claiming compensation for the harassment caused to her. 2. We have heard the...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. I.J. Madan

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of the District Forum-II dated 30.4.1997 in Complaint Case No. 974/94 - entilted Shri I.J. Madan v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum, stating therein, that the respondent had been allotted a flat bearing No. 103, GH-13, Paschim Puri, New Delhi by the appellant/DDA. Thereafter, the respondent was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,31,453/- within 60 days of the receipt of the allotment letter, but the same could only be deposited by the respondent after the expiry of 60 days, with interest, in terms of the demand letter. It is alleged by the respondent that the appellant, after a delay of about 7 months demanded a further amount of Rs. 16,802/- towards interest and API on 3.12.1...

M/S. Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT387TriDel

1. The Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Preventive), Chandigarh vide his order dt.24.7.97 dropping the proceedings initiated against the appellants for the recovery of the duty amounting to Rs.51,660/-.This amount of modvat credit was sought to be recovered from the appellants in the proceedings initiated against them by the Department on the ground that they had taken the modvat credit on the returned goods against their own invoice No.54 dt.13.6.96 issued in favour of their own unit in Chandigarh. These goods were despatched by the appellants to their own unit at Chandigarh and the same were returned for re-processing, as same were found to be sub-standard. The Addl.Commissioner in his order observed that the unit at Chandigarh was not working under Central Excise control and therefore, they had not availed the modvat credit on these goods; that the goods were returned under stock transfer note along with the original duty paying invoice and in view of these facts, the original...

United Sales Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT825TriDel

1. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide her Order dated 30-10-1995 confirmed the demand of Rs. 47,936.84 on the appellants. The ground for confirming this demand was that the appellants had availed the Modvat credit on the strength of the invoice which did not contain the particulars as required under Notification No. 33/94-CE. (N.T.) dated 4-7-1994. The Additional Commissioner in her order has recorded that the noticee subsequently submitted certain documents containing the wanting particulars. These documents were verified and it was observed that the assessable value of goods cleared under the invoice issued by the manufacturer had not been given even in the additional particulars. It is observed that as the rate of duty is ad valorem on goods covered by these invoices, duty is not calculable in the absence of the assessable value declared by the manufacturers of such goods.Thus these documents cannot be considered as valid documents for allowing Modvat credit under R...

Cce Vs. Jaydee Agrochemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC631

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.6.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is under challenge. The Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has recorded as under: I have gone through the case records. I find, there is a lot of merit in the submission made by the appellants and respectfully following the ratio of the Tribunal decisions, the impugned order is set aside.2. We have heared Shri P.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue and Shri A.L.Mathur, Consultant for the respondents, M/s. Jaydee Agrochemicals Ltd. 3. The facts are not very much in dispute. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Agro Chemicals partly on job work basis for M/s.Orchem Intermediate (P) Ltd., Hyderabad and M/s. Orchem Industries, Hyderabad and partly on their own account. The raw materials whether for production on job work basis or on their own account were procured from common sources i.e. from M/s. Royal Traders, Jaipur, M/s. Chemi Organic Ltd....