Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Sunil Kumar Dhaka Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)229; 2001(57)DRJ507; 2002(64)ECC353; 2001RLR211

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The prayers in this writ petition call for the setting aside of the illegal Summary Charge Trial of the Petitioner held on 19.7.1996 by his Commanding Officer. Secondly, it is prayed that the order of the Chief of Naval Staff dated 12.9.1996 whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to (a) rigorous imprisonment for thirty days and (b) dismissal from Navy service to set aside. 2. Thirdly, that the Petitioner be awarded exemplary compensation/damages for his being kept illegally in Naval custody beyond the period of rigorous imprisonment approved by the Chief of Naval Staff. 3. The relevant facts are that on 16.7.1996 the Petitioner had attempted to outrage the modesty of an attendant in the Intensive Care Unit, where the Petitioner was on duty. On a hue and cry being raised by the victim, Officers were summoned and the Petitioner was apprehended. A Summary Court Martial was forthwith held. The Petitioner made a confession of his guilt and expressed remorse for his ...

M/S Vrajlal Manilal and Co. Vs. M/S Bansal Tobacco Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)358; 89(2001)DLT780; 2001(58)DRJ184; 2001(2)RLR114

ORDERMUKUL MUDGAL, J.1. This is an application, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for confirmation of the ex-parte interim order, passed on 18th of March, 1998. By the said order the defendants, its agents, servants, dealers and representatives were restrained from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, chewing tobacco under the trade mark '22'. The defendant-Company seeks vacation of the said order.2. The plaintiff-Company has filed the suit for perpetual injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark and copyright, passing off the trade mark and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant.3. The case of the plaintiff is as under:(i) The plaintiff-Company is engaged in well-established and well-known business of manufacturing and marketing of 'Bidis', smoking tobacco for the last 62 years. That the plaintiffs have been using the trade mark/label consisting of numerals '22' for their aforesaid products of 'Bidis', smoking tobacco and the said trade...

Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Assoc. and anr. Vs. the Lt.Governor of D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)545; AIR2001Delhi271; 90(2001)DLT108; 2001(57)DRJ771

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioners, Vasant Kunj Residents Welfare Association and another, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for removal of unauthorised constructions by jhuggi dwellers on public land within the vicinity of the residential flats situated in Sector C, Pocket 9, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The first grievance of the petitioner is that jhuggi dwellers are squatting on the land and were causing nuisance. The second prayer made in the writ petition is for a mandamus, directing the respondents to construct a boundary wall of sufficient height around the pocket of residential flats to cover the openings that have been left out to segregate the same from the commercial-cum-office complex. 3. During the course of writ proceedings, on 17.3.1999, petitioner gave up the first prayer inasmuch as the encroachments by the jhuggi dwellers had been removed. Learned couns...

Samagya Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]122STC512(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. The main question that has been urged in support of the writ petition is that no reason was recorded before issuance of notice in terms of Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (in short, 'the Act') and, thereforee, subsequent action is illegal.assessed-petitioner's case in nutshell is that it had produced books of accounts for the assessment year 1996-97 and assessment had been completed. Subsequently, notice dated June 12, 2000, under Section 24 of the Act was issued vide annexure P5. The basic requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 24 of the Act is the existence of reason to believe that any turnover has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable or that any deduction has been wrongly made from turnover.2. Pursuant to notice, respondents have appeared and have produced the records. Counter-affidavit has also been filed. Stand of the respondents as indicated in t...

M.C. Joshi and anr. Vs. G.S. Kalra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)909; 90(2001)DLT453

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any unauthorised construction or structure whether temporary or otherwise on the second floor of the premises and/or making any addition or alteration therein and for restraining them from throwing waste and litter or dirty waster or blockading the sewage pipes on the ground floor of the premises in suit. Certain other reliefs were also claimed in the plaint which are not relevant for purposes of deciding the present petition.2. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was stated by the plaintiff that the defendants were tenants on the second floor of the premises for the last several years and were paying rent @ Rs. 400/- p.m. but for the last about two years before the filing of the suit, the rent had not been paid. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that they were co-tenants in the premises for the last about 23 years. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, it w...

Manohar Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 90(2001)DLT394

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. In a suit filed by the plaintiff, an application was filed by him for an injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the property in dispute except by due process of law. The injunction having not been granted, civil revision came to be filed in this Court and by order dated 4th March 1991 passed in Civil Revision No. 778/89 this Court allowed the application of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit except by due process of law. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default on 13th February, 1998. With the dismissal of the suit, all interim orders stood vacated. Plaintiff filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC for restoration of the suit. By order 30th September, 1998, the Trial Court restored the suit, subject to payment of Rs. 800/- as costs. At that time, it was pointed out by Counsel for the Delhi Development Authority that since...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S Amritsar Beverages (P) Ltd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application filed by the Revenue is for reference of a question of law to the appropriate High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The applicants claim that the question of law arises from Final Order No.A/136/1999-NB (S) dated 22.02.1999 passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Department against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.12.1996 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. I have carefully examined the above Final Order and the present application and have heard ld. JDR Shri A.K.Jain for the applicants.The respondents are not represented today inspite of notice of hearing.3. The respondents had taken certain Modvat credit on inputs on the strength of gate passes issued prior to 01.04.1994, but endorsed in their favour after that date. The credit so taken was disallowed by the adjudicating authority under Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In the appeal filed by the assessees against the order of the ad...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Steel Strips

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT1291TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order in appeal dated 30.11.99, the issue relates to the availability of modvat credit on ramming mass. The respondents claimed the modvat credit of Rs.18551/- on this item but Assistant Commissioner disallowed the same through impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.11.98 on the ground that the Revenue Appeal No. 2127/97 against Tribunal's earlier order dated 8.9.94 allowing the modvat credit on ramming mass, had been admitted by the Apex Court. But the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed with this ground of the Assistant Commissioner by observing that mere admission of the appeal did not nullify the Tribunal's order, specially when operation of the order had not been stayed by the Apex Court. He had allowed the modvat credit to the respondents by following the law down by the Tribunal in Kalyani Steel vs. CCE Pune 3. It has been disputed before me that the issue regarding the entitlement of modvat credit on ramming mass, stands, s...

M/S. S.R.F. Ltd., Bhiwandi Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT178TriDel

1. The appellants are manufacturers of chemicals and are availing the benefit of Modvat credit on eligible inputs used in the manufacture of such chemicals. Sulphuric acid and Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (in short, LSHS) are two of such inputs. In June 1994, they took Modvat credit of the duty paid on sulphuric acid amounting to Rs.6,023.00 and similar credit of the duty paid on LSHS amounting to Rs.37,909.00, totalling to Rs.43,932.00. The Department alleged that the credits were wrongly taken on the strength of invalid documents. The credit on sulphuric acid [manufactured by m/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. and supplied to the appellants by M/s Sunny Trading Corporation, the dealers of the manufacturers] was taken on the strength of endorsed invoices of M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. as well as invoices issued by the dealer subsequent to delivery of the goods. The Department alleged that neither the endorsed invoices of the input-manufacturer nor the invoices of the dealer were proper and valid dut...

M/S. Shree Syntex Ltd. Vs. Comissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None for the appellants. The appellants were directed vide Order dated 8.12.2000 by the Tribunal to make pre-deposit of Rs.8,14,776/- within for weeks and compliance was to be reported today. But today none has come present on behalf of the appellants to report the compliance of the said order of the Tribunal. There is also nothing on record to suggest if they had deposited the amount of Rs.8,14,776/-.Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed under Section 35 F of the Act for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order. However, they will be at liberty to get the appeal restored if they were able to produce evidence regarding the compliance of Tribunal's order within stipulated period....