Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. S.M. Steels Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s S.M. Steels, the issue involved is whether M.S. Angles, purchased by them, are liable to confiscation.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Advocate submitted that the Appellants are a trading company involved in the trading of M.S. angles, bars roads, channels, etc.; that on demand by M/s B.G. Trading Co., they purchased 12.075 M.T. M.S. Angles of two sizes form M/s United Steel Industries, Lucknow under Invoice No. 016 dt 10-5-1996 in their own name; that they got loaded the goods on truck NO. UML 9185 from the factory and after having segregated weight of two varieties, issued their own trading invoice No. 103 dt. 10-5-1996 in the name of their customer M/s B.G.Trading Co.; that the truck was intercepted at Station Road, Gorakhpur and the goods were seized and later on were confiscated by the Assistant Commissioner with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine Rs. 30,000/- and imposed a penalty of rs. 10,000/-; that truck was also confiscated with an opti...

Shri Amerjeet Singh Vs. Cc Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT661TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by Shri Amarjeet Singh, the issue involved is whether his truck is liable for confiscation and whether penalty is imposable on him under the customs Act.2. Shri A.C.Jain, ld. Advocate, mentioned at the outset that he is not challanging the smuggled nature of the goods carried in his truck NO.UP 78B/0266. He, further, mentioned that his truck went to deliver pulse at Motihari; that his drive Shrikant loaded the goods on return journey which were contravened and seized by the Customs Officer on 27-10-97 alongwith another Truck No. UP-78/N 8642, that the Commissioner, in the impugned Order No. 49/CCP/LKD/98 dt. 30-11-98, confiscated, interalia his truck with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- him, holding that Shrikant, Driver, had in his statements dt. 27-10-97 and 28-10-97 deposed that Appellant had directed him to load the impugned goods and to hand over the freight to him on return to Kanpur.T...

Shikha Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)547; AIR2001Delhi247; 90(2001)DLT18; 2001(57)DRJ770

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a landlord/owner who does not happen to be a registered consumer of electricity can be saddled with the liability in respect of the electricity charges of the tenants simply because of ownership of the premises? Petitioner claims that it purchased the premises bearing Nos.50-51, Regal Building, New Delhi, vide transfer documents dated 15th November, 1982. However, it could get the actual physical possession from the two tenants, viz. Suresh Chand and J.N. Mehra, as the said two tenants had unauthorisedly transferred the possession of the premises in favor of one Shaukat Rai Mehrotra.3. Petitioner states that perforce it had to accept the attornment of the said Shaukat Rai Mehrotra as a tenant. In the event, petitioner filed an eviction petition against the said Shaukat Rai Mehrotra and finally obtaine...

Smt. Devi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)584; 90(2001)DLT626; I(2001)DMC585; 2001(50)DRJ310

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. This is an unfortunate case where a young woman of 24 years age has died because of being burnt with kerosene oil. The death took place at other matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the dying declaration and the evidence which had come on record, sentenced the appellant Smt. Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased to undergo rigourous imprisonment for life and further to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for 15 days. This sentence has been awarded under Section 302 IPC vide order of conviction & sentence passed on 26th August, 1995. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence dated 26th August, 1995 on the following amongst other grounds.1. that the version given in the dying declaration is contrary to the facts on record. 2. that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses; 3. th...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) C.K. Asha Sinha and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)253

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this suit the plaintiff Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act 1980 has sought a joint and several decree in its favor and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.7,73,389 Along with pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount at the rate of 19.5 per cent per annum with quarterly rest. The facts giving rise to the suit are as under: 2. Defendant No. 1 is a qualified doctor, and has been running a clinic at A/B-7, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He approached the plaintiff Bank for sanction of Term Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of Blood Detector Fluriscent Microscope and Accessories and submitted a standard Loan Application dated 26.5.1990. Defendant No.2 is also a practicing doctor and is the husband of the defendant No.1. He stood as guarantor for the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 declared that she was the owner of the house No.A-B/7, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and ...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ramkishan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)781; 91(2001)DLT395; 2001(58)DRJ777; [2001(89)FLR549]; (2001)ILLJ1411Del

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Costs paid. This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Ms. Kalia, learned Counsel appearing for the MCD seeks to assail the award at this stage. In my view this is not permissible. She further states that an order under Section 17-B should be restricted to the lowest wages. I am also unable to agree with this contention. Even if the respondent was a daily wager as is contended by the learned Counsel for the MCD he would be entitled to payment in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act. In passing an order under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, a meaningful interpretation of the words 'full wages last drawn'. An order directing the payment of wages below the Minimum Wages Act would not be legal. In my view, thereforee, where it is contended that the workman was receiving daily wages or minimum wages an order under Section 17-B should clarify that in paying the last wages drawn by the workman he must be paid the minimum...

Jeevan Dass Vs. Ranbir Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)769; 90(2001)DLT595

S.K. Mahajan, J.Admit.1. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.2. The Trial Court had framed issues on 16.7.91 and the matter was adjourned to 3.2.92 for plaintiff's evidence. Evidence could not be recorded on that date as the plaintiff was not well and medical certificate was produced on that date and the matter was, thereforee, adjourned to 15.7.92. On that date also no evidence of the plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. Thereafter the matter was adjourned till 26.8.97 from time to time for hearing arguments on various applications including the application of defendant/respondent for amendment of the written statement. On 26.8.97, the Court observed that no additional issues were required to be framed and the case was listed for plaintiff's evidence on 13.1.98. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses on 11.12.97 and the same was taken on record. On 13.1.98, the Court did not have ti...

Susheel Kumar and Another Vs. Unitech Limited and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Shri Susheel Kumar and Smt. Asha Susheel Kumar (for short the complainants), have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter refered to as the Act), averring that allured by the advertisements, issued by the opposite parties for the booking of built-up houses in the South City Complex, Gurgaon (Haryana), the complainants applied for booking of a plot/house and also made initial deposits as required by the opposite parties. It is stated that thereafter opposite party No. 1 demanded first instalment of Rs. 84,148/- vide letter dated 27.7.1990. It is further stated that opposite party No. 1, thereafter, vide letter dated 18.8.1990, intimated the complainants the Customer Code Number of the complainants. It is stated that on 30.9.1990, the opposite parties demanded second instalment which was due on 23.10.1990. It is further the case of the complainants that opposite party No. 1, on 31.10.1992, sent a State...

Cce Raipur Vs. M/S Modi Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appearing for the respondents, M/S. Modi Cement Ltd. submits that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the respondents' own case for different period as reported in 1998 (99) ELT 378 (Tribunal) - Modi Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur. He further submits that the facts are identical.3. I have considered the matter.As is clear from the impugned order-in-appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had followed the Tribunal's decision in the respondents' own case on the identical issue.4. As the matter is already covered by the aforesaid Tribunal's decision, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly....

Cce Jaipur Vs. United Marbles Sakhawat Ali

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT84TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) setting aside the Adjudication Order passed by the Dy. Commissioner under which duty of Central Excise was confirmed and penalty was imposed on the Respondents.2. Shri A.K. Jain, Ld. Dr, submitted that the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of M/s United Marbles Pvt. Ltd, on 13-6-97; that on physical verification only 20.9603 Cu mtrs shown in RG-I Register; that Shri Sakhawat Ali, authorised signatory, admitted shortage of marbles slabs and removal thereof without payment of duty; that the Respondents deposited the duty amount immediately before the issue of show cause notice. A show cause notice dt. 18-8-98 was issued only for imposition of penalty and appropriation of duty already deposited in Govt. account; that the duty once deposited can be refunded only under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act; that it is a case of clandestine removal of excisable goods and...