Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments

M/S. Container Movement (Bombay) Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Capital ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)852; 86(2000)DLT150; 2000(54)DRJ100; (2000)126PLR20

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The present application is for the amendment of the plaint filed under the summary procedure contained in Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has come at an awkward stage of the litigation, inasmuch as the Defendant has filed its application seeking Leave to Defend the suit. The Plaintiff prays that the amendment application should be disposed off forthwith but the Defendant has pressed that since his application is anterior in time, it should be considered first. The Defendant has also maintained that the plaint cannot be amended as this procedure is beyond the contemplation of Order xxxvII. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties have invited the Courts decision on this interesting question and have jointly submitted that the two applications, on merits, be taken up later. 2. In Suit No. 1811/89 entitled Shri Prakash Sharma v. D.D.A. & Ors., I had, on 3.3.2000, permitted the Petitioner to amend his Objections filed under Sections 3...

Fateh Chand Kumar (Deceased) Vs. Harivansh Lal Kumar (Deceased)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)866; AIR2001Delhi146; 86(2000)DLT111; 2000(56)DRJ373; (2000)126PLR25

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. No. 8038/98 filed on behalf of Plaintiff under Section, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the issuance of a direction to Defendants 2. and 3 to deposit the Court fee for drawing up the decree.I.A. No. 8039/98 has been filed on behalf of Defendant No. 6 and is a reproduction ,Verbatim, of the other application. A Reply to I.A. 8038/98 has been filed on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3. 2. The objection raised on behalf of Defendants 2 and 3 is that the application is not maintainable as the case has been decided on 7.5.1996. It has also been stated that all the parties have filed appeals against the judgment passed, and these are pending before a Division Bench of this Court. It is further, submitted that the judgment has varied the terms of compromise arrived at between the parties and has increased the liability of Defendants 2 and 3 against their consent. To this extent it is non est. 3. The question of the le...

Dr. Abbas Ali Khan Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)119; 85(2000)DLT803; 2000(56)DRJ320; 2000(3)SLJ266(Delhi)

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- 'In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased: a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order(s), direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to pay to the petitioners the same amount of stipend which was and/or is being paid to post Graduate MD students of Modern Medicine till 1.1.96 as per earlier quantum and as per the v pay commission revised scale/stipend thereafter with retrospective effect from their respective dates of admission.' 2. Petitioners 1 to 6 are studying in the 1st Year of the post Graduate MD(Unani) course. Petitioners 7 to 15 are in the second Year of the post Graduate MD(Unani) course. Petitioners 16 to 27 are in the third year of the Post Graduate MD(Unani) course. Petitioners 28 to 45 had complied their Post Graduate MD(Unani) course, and they are claiming stipend with reference to the period they ...

Kawaljit Singh Kher Vs. M/S. Okara Agro Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above named complainant has filed the present complaint averring that lured by the representations and attractive rate of interest, offered by the opposite party, the complainant made fixed deposits in the Sugam Scheme of the opposite party for the amounts of Rs. 1,85,000/- and Rs. 1,60,000/- on 28.4.1997, as well as an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- on 28.10.1997. Under the above said Scheme, the opposite party was to pay an interest @ 2% per month on the abovesaid amounts to the complainant and had also issued advance cheques for the principal as well as the interest amounts. The said cheques were drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jungpura, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). On 20.3.1998, the Bank issued a press release in the newspaper The Hindustan Times stating therein that, the opposite party had closed its account with the Bank and the creditors/depositors, holding cheques issued by opposite party should contact the opposite party directly ins...

Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. Singapore Airlines Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is an Associate Professor in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. In order to further improve his academic qualifications, the complainant applied to the Royal College of Pathologists, London (U.K.) to appear in an examination for Diploma in Dermatopathology. The above said examination was scheduled to be held on 22.3.1994 at Hong Kong. The complainant booked his ticket for Hong Kong through his travel agent M/s. Air Travel Bureau on 8.3.1994. The complainant handed over his Passport No. 689259 to his travel agent, who in turn is said to have delivered it to the Singapore Airlines General Sales Agents (GSA), M/s. Jet Air Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi for issue of an air ticket in Singapore Airlines Flight scheduled for 20.3.1994 for travel from Delhi to Hong Kong and back. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite paty negligently lost the passport of the complainant. An FIR was lodged by th...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. NavIn Chemicals Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(135)ELT777TriDel

1. This COD application and appeal are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal dated 7-7-1999 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal in which he has allowed the appeal of M/s. Navin Chemical Enterprises, Dewas against the Orders-in-Original dated 19-12-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The adjudicating authority in his order had confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,97,787/- and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,000/- on the respondents for allegedly taking inadmissible Modvat credits under Rule 57Q on certain goods.2. In the COD application of the Revenue it is stated that the Order-in-Appeal dated 7-7-1999 was received in the Commissionerate Office on 14-7-1999. The appeal against this was to be filed latest by 13-10-1999. The appeal has been filed on 10-12-1999. Thus there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. The grounds of delay are stated to be that on 22-10-1999 they received a communication fro...

Montex Glass Fibre Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT538TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants claiming that the benefit of Notification No. 52/86 was available to the appellants.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturing Resi Glass Tape/Poly Glass Tape. They contended that they were entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of Serial No. 11 of the annexed Table to Notification No. 52/86 as amended by Notification No. 145/86. The department alleged that Notification No. 52/86 allowed concessional rate of duty on the goods specified in column No. 3 of the Table annexed to this notification in respect of goods as are specified in the corresponding entry in column No. 2 of the Table. Serial No. 11 under Column No. 2 specified the heading and sub-heading number as 7014.00. Under column No. 3 of the Table, description of the goods is given as "All goods other than goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastic or varnish." The contention of the appellant is that their product is resi ...

B.T. Agency (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(93)LC68Tri(Delhi)

1. Arguing the application for restoration of the Appeal, Ms. Sunitha Dutt, ld. Counsel submits that the Appeal of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that none appeared for the appellants when listed for hearing. She submits that notice for hearing fixed on 27.12.1999 was not issued to her, as she was the Counsel for the appellants on that day. She submits that she had been appearing in the appellants' case on earlier occasions also. She submits that since there was no intimation to the Counsel of the appellants, the Counsel could not appear and thus the absence was not deliberate. She therefore prays that since the notice sent to the appellants had been received back and no notice was sent to the Counsel for the appellants, the Appeal may be restored to its original number and fixed for hearing.3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the explanation given by the ld. Counsel is satisfactory. In the circumstances, we allow the Appeal and restore to its original...

Dr. Durga Dass, Retd. Vs. the Chief Secretary Govt. of Nct of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant Dr. Durga Dass, a retired employee of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, is aggrieved by the delayed payment of his pension, gratuity, and the non-payment of certain missing credits in GPF. The facts of this case briefly are as under: 2. The applicant, who was working as an Assistant Director in the Department of Animal Husbandry under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, retired on superannuation on 31.7.1997 on attaining the age of 58 years. He received an amount of Rs. 1,26,575 from the respondents which was due to him on account of pension and an amount of Rs. 2,08,786 was also paid to him as gratuity. The pension, which, according to the applicant, was due on 1.8.97, was paid to him on 17.4.99 and the gratuity which was also due on the same date was paid to him on 3.2.99. Certain missing credits in his GPF were not paid to him as on the date of filing of this application. The applicant, who is aggrieved by the delay in paymen...

C.B. Saini and ors. Vs. Indian Airlines and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)214; 2000(53)DRJ518

ORDERA.K. Sikri,J. 1. Petitioners were originally appointed as Trainee Pilots by Vayudoot.There respective dates of appointments are as under: Petitioner No.1 16.05.1988Petitioner No.2 19.09.1989Petitioner No.3 09.07.1988Petitioner No.4 18.09.1989 2. While the petitioners were still Trainee Pilots, they made representations to Vayudoot Ltd. for giving them Co-Pilot Grade and granting them regular scale of pay. In the meantime, on 24.5.1994 Government of India issued orders to absorb the Vayudoot employees into various organisations under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were absorbed in Indian Airlines and were given appointment letters. One such appointment letter issued to Petitioner No.3 is dated 30.11.95 which has been enclosed with the writ petition. It may be observed at this stage that with Vayudoot Ltd., petitioners were imparted training on Dernier 228 and the training had not been completed. After absorption of the petitioners with Indian Airl...