Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

J.S. Constructions Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)477; 91(2001)DLT134; 2001(59)DRJ551

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Pursuant to the disputes raised by the petitioner, Mr. A.L. Garg, Superintending Engineer (Civil) was appointed by the Engineer Member, DDA as a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and make the award. 2. The arbitrator filed the award Along with the proceedings on 21st April, 1993. The same was taken on record and registered as Suit No. 888/93. Notice of the filing of the award was served upon both the parties. The respondent was served on 25th June, 1993. The petitioner accepted the award and did not file objections against making the award rule of the Court. However the respondents filed objections against the award mainly challenging the findings of the facts in respect of various claims and against the conduct of the arbitrator for acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract. 3. It is well settled that the Court does not sit in appeal and none of the parties can be allowed to reopen the case while challenging the award in respect of findings of...

Rajni Rani Gupta Vs. Babu Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)155; 90(2001)DLT520; 2001(58)DRJ206

S.K. Mahajan, J.Admit.1. On 18th May, 1994 in an appeal filed by the petitioner, this Court passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 & 2 from selling, transferring or parting with possession of the properties in question or from creating any encumbrance thereof. By an agreement dated 16th April, 1992 respondents 1 and 2 agreed to sell the said properties to respondent No. 3 for a sale consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. Since the sale deed was not being executed by respondents 1 & 2 in favor of respondent No. 3, the said respondent filed a suit being S. No. 1018/95 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16th April, 1992. In this suit statement was made by the respondent on 14th May, 1996 that balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- has been paid by respondent No. 3 to respondents 1 and 2 on 15th February, 1996 and sale deed has also been executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner on coming to know of the fact that the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Jaiswal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR453(Delhi)

1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), for the two assessment years, i.e., 1975-76 and 1976-77, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 36,000 utilised in the purchase of deferred annuity policy by the company for the benefit of the assessed was not liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessed ?'2. The assessed was the managing director of Jagjit Industries Ltd. and in that capacity he had income- from salary, commission, director's fee, etc. In addition, he had income from speculation profit from shares and also from dividends and interest. For the assessment years in question a decision was taken that a sum of Rs. 36,000 would be utilised by the company for purchasin...

D.K. Bhargava Vs. Smt. Maya Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi139

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 7 lacs with interest pendente lite and future interest under Order XXXIV Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) by way of sale of mortgaged property. The Defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 have raised a preliminary objection by way of moving the present application stating that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as the property alleged to be mortgaged in favor of the plaintiff is situated in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.2. The contention of learned counsel for the defendants is that in a suit for recovery by way of sale of mortgaged property the provisions of Section 16(c) CPC are applicable and the suit can only be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property in suit is situated. It is contended that in a case which is covered by Section 16(c) CPC, Section 20 CPC cannot be called in aid. Section 20 CPC is specifically stated to be subject to...

Jai Lakshmi Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. L.C. Dhingra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. By this order we shall dispose of application dated 26.7.1995 filed by respondent (hereinafter referred to as the applicant). 2. In the said application, it is stated that applicant came later on 26.7.1995 due to traffic jam and his car was punctured and that his case was called and he was proceeded ex-parte. That non-appearance of applicant and his Counsel at the time, this case was called, was neither malafide nor intentional but the absence was only due to the above reasons. It is, therefore, prayed that order dated 26.7.1995 proceeding ex-parte against the applicant/respondent in this appeal be set aside in the interest of justice. 3. This application has been contested by the appellant by filing reply. In reply, it is stated that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to grant the relief prayed for by the applicant and as such this application is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that ...

M/S. Veekay General Industries Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT57TriDel

1. These two appeals have been filed against the common order in original dated 30.11.99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, by the appellants vide which he ordered seizure of goods involving duty of 2,27,286/- with option to get the same redeem on payment of Rs.4,00,000/- ; and imposed penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules on appellant No.(1) and also imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on appellant No (2) under Rule 209A of the Rules.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of copper wire bars/ingots, strips copper wire of refined copper etc.They had been availing modvat facility under Rule 57-A for the Rules. On 8.12.96 surprise raid was conducted on their factory premises by the Central Excise Officers(Preventive) and Shri R.C. Prasad (appellant No.2), authorised signatory of the firm of appellant No. (1) was present at that time in the factory. After scrutiny of the record and physical stock checking of the finished goods as well as t...

M/S S.S. Enterprises Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2.1 On 3.8.93, officers of Central Excise intercepted a tempo loaded with 355 pairs of footwear. The driver of the vehicle produced Challan No 26 dated 3.8.93 issued by the appellants vis. M/s S.S. Enterprises Agra, which did not indicate the value of the said goods and the progressive value of footwear cleared by the party till date. The officers, on the same day, also visited the factory premises of the appellants and, in the presence of Sh. Mohd. Naseem, partner of the firm, checked the stock of goods and inspected the machinery installed in the factory. They found there a stock of 1454 pairs of fully finished footwear, 410 pairs of semi-finished footwear, 70 pairs of semi-finished bellies and 250 pairs of uppers of shoes. They also found a pasting machine installed in the factory. The officers got the goods and machine photographed and also drew samples of the footwears in the presence of Sh. Mohd. Naseem and two independent witnesses. They also recorded a statement of Sh. Mohd. N...

M/S Elcon Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Elcom Trading Co. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the refund claim filed by them was hit by time limit specified under Section 27 of the Customs act.2. Shri S.M. Iqbal, ld. Consultant, submitted, that the Appellants had imported trinty base system with hardware, software and its accessories and filed bill of entry for its clearance on 16-6-98; that as per the direction of the Department, they paid customs duty of Rs. 3,42,788/- by pay Order dt. 23-6-98 as advance custom duty as per procedure of the Respondents; that the Customs duty is payable as advance before examination of the imported goods; that in the course of examination of the consignment, it was noticed that the supplier had sent NTSC version instead of PAL version as ordered by them; that the consignment was re-exported on 2-1-99; that they filed the refund claim on 21-12-98 which was received by the Department on 24-12-98. The ld. Consultant, further, submitted that the claim for refund w...

M/S Harman Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Both the matter are posted today for hearing the stay application.However, as the issue involved is in very narrow compass, I stay the recovery the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on M/s Harman Steel (P) Ltd., and take up the appeal for disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. Shri H.O.Arora, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had disallowed the Modvat Credit far non filing of Modvat Declaration and had imposed the penalty; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugner Order, allowed the Modvat Credit as the declaration was filed by them within 6 months of receipt of inputs in terms of provisions of Rule 57G (10) of the Central Excise Rules; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the penalty without assigning any reason; that the question of penalty does not arise as there was no contravention of any Rules.3. Shri Swantratra Kumar, Ld. D.R., opposed the prayer by submitting that as the Modvat Credit was availed of before filing the...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S Rine Engg. (P) Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT117TriDel

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order No. 2086/CE/CHD/99 dt. 30-11-99, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the Modvat Credit to M/s Rine Engineering (P) Ltd on the strength of unauthenticated invoice and in respect of angles, channels etc., for not submitting the proof of their use in the manufacture of final product.2. Shri H.R.Bheema Shankar, Ld. SDR., submitted that the credit cannot be availed of on the basis of unauthenticated invoice issued by second stage dealer; that the Respondents had not adduced any evidence to their claim that Channels, angles, rounds, bars & rods were melted alongwith ferrous waste and scrap to manufacture castings; that these are also not inputs under the definition of Rule 57 A of the Central Excise Rules.3. Countering the arguments, shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the Respondents had duly declared channels, angles, rods, bars and rounds in their Modvat Declarations dt. 20-2-1996 and 18-6-98; that they were us...