Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

M/S. Federal Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. M/S. Nutsco (Nigeria) Ltd. and An ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi25; 2000(55)DRJ494

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Following preliminary issue was framed on 26th July 1999:- 'Whether the suit is instituted within time.'2. Suit was filed, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff company is engaged in the business of export of medicines. Sh. M.N. Khanchandani on behalf of defendant No.1 company approached the plaintiff for purchase of Hyoscine Butyl Bromide Tablets B.P (10 mg). In regard to this medicine on or about 29th September 1992 the plaintiff sent a perform invoice bearing No. 5/92-93 of the value of US $ 47250. Vide letter dated 2nd November, 1992 the defendant No.1 accepted said performa invoice and asked the plaintiff to draw documents through Canara Bank, Longbow House, 14-20, Chis well Street, London, ECIY, 4SR A/c Palm Investment Ltd. In pursuance of this letter the plaintiff dispatched consignments of the said medicine through defendant No. 2 vide their Master Airway Bill No. 05693122 comprising of 4 House Airway Bill Nos. 071-RTC 184, 185, 186 and 187, all dated 4th Ja...

M/S. Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. the Appellate Authority for Industria ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas178(Delhi); 2000(57)DRJ232

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this writ petition the challenge is to the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') allowing request of State Bank of India (in short 'SBI') to proceed in the matter of recovery in terms of a consent decree obtained by the SBI from Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (in short Tribunal). The said order of BIFR was affirmed by the Appellate Authority of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'AAIFR'). 2. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice: Petitioner had filed a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for declaring the petitioner as a sick industrial company. The reference was considered and BIFR by its order dated 4th December, 1998 declared the petitioner a sick industrial unit under Section 3(1)(0) of the Act. Industrial Finance Corporation of India (in short OA) in terms of Section 17(3) of the Act to ex...

The General Manager (Northern Railway) Vs. Anil Kumar Srivastava

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 7.2.2000, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 2194/99 entitled - Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava and Anr. v. Northern Railway and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that he had got a confirmed reservation for his own self and his wife Smt. Nidhi Srivastava by Muri Express (8101 Up) in the First Class Compartment for 30.3.1997 to travel from Ferozabad (Uttar Pradesh) to Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that on the appointed day when the respondent with his wife and a daughter, aged only two and half months, reached at Railway Station Ferozabad and when the train (Muri Express) arrived at Ferozaba...

R.G.L. Converter Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT176TriDel

1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-original dated 29-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the process printing and slitting of cork tipping base paper into printed cork tipping paper amounts to manufacture in terms of definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2F of the Central Excise Act.4. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants are not allowed to produce their defence. The appellants vide letter dated 23-8-1999 made a request to the Commissioner of Central Excise to produce the witnesses, whose letters and testimonials have already been produced by the appellants in support of their defence. This request was declined by the Commissioner or Central Excise vide letter dated 31-8-1999. The letter of Commissioner of Central Excise office reads as under : "Sub :- Show cause notice IV (Hqrs-Prev) 15/72/98 in r/o M/s. RGL Converter. Please refer to your letter dt. ...

Multitech Engineers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT187TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the impugned order a duty of Rs. 3,17,890/- is confirmed on the appellant and penalty of Rs. 31,000/- was also imposed.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries placed an order for supply of one Cane Juice Clarifier to the appellant. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that Cane Juice Clarifier was manufactured by the appellant and erection and commission was done by the appellant. Vide impugned order the duty was demanded on Cane Juice Clarifier.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Cane Juice Clarifier was erected on cement concrete foundation assembled piece by piece and attached to earth on its pre-constructed foundation, therefore, Cane Juice Clarifier is embedded to earth and did not constitute goods, so as to attract excise duty. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court i...

National Fertilizer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT41TriDel

1. The appellants were given a notice contravention of rule 192 and 196 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period 8/93 to 3/97 as it was observed that deliberately, by using the NGL received under Chapter X procedure on concessional rate of Notification 75/84 to be used in the manufacture of fertilizer or Ammonia deliberately used it in the generation of power for which neither the appellants had applied for not permitted by the department. Thus this diversion of 61454 K.L of NGL for generation of electric power which in turn was used for driving various motors, equipments in the plant as well as for factory services and lighting in site office, administrative building and were put to notice why the concession should not be withdrawn, the B-8 bond forfeited and differential duty of Rs. 2,94,46,288/- be recovered from them involving the provisions of extended period and penalty be imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. "It is seen from the statement showing detail...

Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) under s. 154 of the IT Act, dt. 3rd March, 1997, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1989-90. By various grounds raised the assessee has challenged the very validity of the order under s. 154 of the Act and the disallowance of Rs. 2,27,73,422 confirmed by the CIT(A).2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in manufacture of automobile shock absorbers. It maintains its books of accounts on regular basis. Its accounting year was ending on 31st July of each year. Consequent upon the amendment to s. 3 of the IT Act, the assessee adopted its accounting year on the basis of financial year. However, for the purposes of Companies Act, the assessee continued to adopt its account as on 31st July, of each year.3. For the current year the assessee's accounting year is of 20 months i.e., 1st August, 1987, to 31st March, 1989. The return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 5,71,78,485 including the current year's loss ...

Mukesh Kumar Vs. State and anr

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 92(2001)DLT499

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral)1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No.264/96 registered under Sections 379 IPC and 39/44 Indian Electricity Act pending in the court of Ms.Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M., Delhi. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: 2. On 4.10.1996 at about 1.30 p.m. some officials of the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) raided the premises of the petitioner (No.2257, Gali Hinga Bag, Khari Baoli, Delhi) and reported to the police about the theft of electricity against the petitioner from the DVB electric energy poles. Delhi Vidyut Board lodged an FIR bearing No.264/96 dated 7.10.1996 under Section 379 IPC and 39/44 I.E.Act at police station Lahori Gate, Delhi for the alleged theft of electricity by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner applied for the anticipatory bail and the learned ASJ was pleased to grant him anticipatory bail. It is not disputed that the petitioner after the recei...

Radhey Shyam @ Langra Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(78)ECC663

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Heard learned amices curiae as also learned counsel for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the material on record. 2. By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 1.11.1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 70/92 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty for offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac and in default to undergo further rigorous imprison- ment for four months. 3. The facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, are that on 30.7.1992, ASI Raj Pal, who was on patrol duty, at around 7.15 p.m. re- ceived a secret information that one Sansei Wearing Sleety Colour Safari Suit would be carrying charas. This information was reduced into writing and thereafter a raiding party was organized. At around 7.45 p.m. the accused was apprehended a...

Sh. Prashant Srivastava Vs. C.B.S.E. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi28

Arun Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition in which the primary relief he seeks is the allotment of a seat in the MBBS/BDS Course in the second round of allotment which is to start from 9th September, 2000. 2. The petitioner appeared in Class-XII examinations in March, 2000 conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education. Results of such examinations are normally announced in the end of May or early June every year. However, Central Board of Secondary Education also conducts All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examinations (PMT) which is normally conducted before the Class-XII results are announced. thereforee, those who appear in Class-XII examination are also allowed to take the PMT examination even when the Class-XII results are not declared. This examination was conducted on 14th May, 2000 and petitioner also appeared in the examination. 3. Result of Class-XII examination was declared on 30th May, 2000. As luck would have it, petitioner although secured 60 or more ...