Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Jeet Lal and Other Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)585; 84(2000)DLT758; 2000(53)DRJ219

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. In the amended plaint it is alleged that the plaintiffs were the owners of property No. 29-B, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Along with defendants 2 to 6. Shops on the ground floor of the property has been in occupation of the plaintiffs as tenants for the last many years. Defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs and said defendants for purchase of the said property for Rs. 8,25,000/- through Narinder Anand, property broker. Plaintiffs told the defendants that they were ready to sell the property subject to the specific condition that they would remain as tenants in the respective shops in their occupation for ever and after their death their respective heirs would become tenants in their place on the same terms and conditions. Defendant No.1 agreed to purchase the property subject to the said specific condition. It is further alleged that at the time of entering into the agreement of sale dated 26th February, 1973 the agreements of tenancies were also simultaneously...

Ashish Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(118)ELT331(Del)

1. The petitioner has challenged the order, dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the Additional Director General (Foreign Trade) and order, dated 24th August, 1999 passed by the Appellate Committee in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the original order. By the original order a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner besides disqualification for imports up to the year 2002. This action was taken under Section 4-I(i)(c) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 although the show cause notice proposed action under Section 4-I(i)(a) instead of 4-I (i)(c). The Appellate Committee reduced the penalty to Rs. 2.50 lakhs and also quashed the disqualification imposed with respect to imports.2. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action was without jurisdiction inasmuch as Section 4-I(1)(a) or (c) are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. Sub-clause (a) ...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Shri Suresh Kumar JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)842; [2001]106CompCas714(Delhi); 85(2000)DLT37; 2000(53)DRJ432; (2000)125PLR26

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. By this Order I shall dispose of an application under Section 47 read with Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed on behalf of Judgment Debtor No. 2. A decree has been passed in the Bank's suit for recovery of Rs. 200315.19 against the defendants in Suit No. 2673/1986, being a suit brought under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant was the third defendant in that suit and had admittedly executed a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff, as collateral for the loans granted to Defendant No.1. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that he is entitled to the protection granted under Sections 60, 60(IA) as well as Sub-section (ccc) of the Civil Procedure Code, which is applicable to Delhi as has been specifically held in : [1983]143ITR607(Delhi) . 2. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : 'Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. 60.(1). The following property is liable to attac...

Ashish Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(69)ECC42

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the Additional Director General Foreign Trade and order dated 24th August, 1999 passed by the Appellate Committee in an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the original order. By the original order a penalty of Rs. 50 lakh was imposed on the petitioner besides disqualification for imports up to the year 2002. This action was taken under Section 4-I(i)(c) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 although the show cause notice proposed action under Section 4-I(i)(a) instead of 4-I(i)(c). The Appellate Committee reduced the penalty to Rs. 2.50 lakh and also quashed the disqualification imposed with respect to imports.2. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the action was without jurisdiction inasmuch as Section 4-I (i)(a) or (c) are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Our attention was drawn to the relevant provisions. Sub-clause (a) relate...

M/S. D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Neeran Sawhney

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 18.11.1999, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 204/1999-entitled Sh. Neeran Sawhney v. D.C.M. Ltd. and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Shri Neeran Sawhney had made deposit with the appellant under a Scheme, floated by the appellant. The deposit, so made, by the respondent with the appellant, was to carry interest and was payable after the date of maturity. Since the appellant failed to pay back the amount to the respondent even after the date of maturity, respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum for recovery of amount due to him from the appellant under the above-said scheme together with interest and cost. 3. The claim of the respondent before the Distr...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Kamla Devi

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 22.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. I (North District), in Complaint Case No. 2040/98 entitled Smt. Kamla Devi v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that respondent Smt. Kamla Devi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the respondent who is a tenant in property bearing No. 480, ground floor, New Basti, Kishan Ganj, Delhi-7, with the consent of the landlord, had applied for a fresh electricity connection in her name and had deposited the security amount, amounting to Rs. 150/- and the other charges amounting to Rs. 340/- on 19.5.1998. The respondent, had further, deposited an amount of Rs. 35/- on 7.7.1998 for the aforesaid purpose. The grievance of the respondent, ...

Hmp Cements Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC739

1. This case has been referred to Larger Bench to decide the issue relating to eligibility to Modvat credit in respect of 'Grinding Media'. Identical issue was considered by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Durgapur Cement Works reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 197 (Tribunal). The said Larger Bench referred to another Larger Bench decision in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). In the case of 'Grinding Media' the Bench observed that it forms input in the manufacture of cement in paragraphs 10 & 11 of its judgment which read as follows :- "10. There is no controversy before us in regard to the aspect that Steel Balls (Grinding Media) used in Ball Mills are "inputs" used in or in relation to manufacture of Cement (the final product) within the meaning of Rule 57 A of the Rules. Ball Mill is the machinery used for manufacture of Cement. Ball Mill can of course be switched on without Steel balls ...

Narmada Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC290

1. These are two appeals filed by two different parties. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case are that the assessees filed declaration with the coming into force of Section 3A and the Rules made pursuant to this amended section for paying duty either by taking actual production or paying duty on periodical basis of a fixed amount.3. In the instant case the Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants furnished the figures required by the Department but opted for payment of duty under Sub-section (4) of Section 3-A. The appellants stated that they would like to pay duty on the basis of actual production. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that at no stage the appellants claimed that they will pay duty in terms of the provisions of Rule 96Z03 and furnished the figures required for the purpose. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner instead of acceding to their req...

Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT136TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Limited is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/88 and 180/88 is available to the various excisable goods of Aluminium utensils manufactured by them.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants inspite of notice of hearing. We, therefore, heard Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR, and perused the records.3. We find that the Collector (Appeals) has denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/88 and 180/88 in respect of spitoons of Aluminium, surgical trays, kidney trays, Lotion Bowls and trays, holding that these are not utensils. The Collector (Appeals) also denied the benefit in respect of sieves of Aluminium. As far as sieves are concerned, we agree with the findings of the ld. Collector (Appeals) because both these Notifications exempt from payment of duty goods falling under Heading 73.23 and 7615.10 whereas sieves are specifically classifiable under Heading 96.04. However, in respect...

Cce, Delhi Vs. M/S. Dev Paper(P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) holding that Modvat credit could be taken on the strength of gate passes endorsed on or after 1.4.94 in terms of Notification No.16/94 dt.1.4.94.2. The facts of the case in brief are that Asstt. Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit in respect of gate passes issued before 1.4.94 but endorsed upto 30.6.94. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed Modvat credit taken on the strength of gate passes issued before 1.4.94 but endorsed on or after 1.4.94 and credit thereon was taken on or before 30.6.94.3. Arguing the case Shri S.C.Pushkarana, Ld. DR submits that gate passes were issued before 1.4.94 and since after 1.4.94 they were not valid documents, therefore, they could not be endorsed. He however, submits that the matter went to the High Court and the Hon'ble Gujrat High Court has held that Modvat credit could be taken on the strength of gate passes end...