Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

Shri Brahmanand Kejriwal Vs. Kushal Kishore Aggarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)810; 90(2001)DLT49; 2001(58)DRJ89

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 2000 passed by learned Trial Court in Suit No.239/93. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein for possession of suit premises being Property bearing No.16, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi situated in Najafgarh Industrial Area. Further decree is passed in favor of respondent directing the defendant/appellant herein to pay mesne profit and damages at the rate of Rs.400/- per day from the date of termination of the license till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at the rate of Rs.300/- per day. 2. Respondent is admittedly the owner of the suit property. license Deed dated 1st April, 1979 was executed between the parties which mentions that at the request of licensee (appellant), licensor (respondent) has agreed to grant the license to use some portion (specifically shown in the attached plan) for running ...

Smt. Shruti Kalra Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)582; 90(2001)DLT262; 2001(57)DRJ600

ORDERA.K. SIKRI, J.1. The credentials of the petitioner in this petition demonstrate as to how the petitioner who is a handicapped person, as she was born with congenital blindness, has not allowed this disability to disable her. Even without any vision or proper vision since birth, the petitioner not only pursued her studies but proved to the world at large that what a normal student could do she could do the same equally well or even better. This is clearly demonstrated by the testimony of her academic record. She passed her Senior Secondary Examination with distinction in Accountancy as well as Economics in 1981. She joined B.A. (Hons.) degree course in Instrumental Music and topped in Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi in all three years; in 1984, received third prize in Culturefest, for Sitar Vadan during the Diamond Jubilee Celebration of Delhi University; in 1985 she was awarded of All India Post Graduate Scholarship for Instrumental Music by the University of Delhi. After ...

Pushkar Singh and Others Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)749; 90(2001)DLT36; 2001(57)DRJ734

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition discloses that notwithstanding clear, unambiguous and laudable objectives sought to be achieved by a decision, how it remains only on paper because of apathy, lack of will and lackadaisical approach of the authorities who are supposed to implement such decision. The laudable decision here is that of Executive Council of the University of Delhi taken vide its Resolution No.193/(SIC) on 16th July, 1994 with a vision to help the visually and Orthopedically handicapped persons to get teaching posts in the University and Colleges. It provided, vide aforesaid Resolution, 3 per cent reservations with immediate effect for blind and Orthopedically candidates in teaching post in the Delhi University and the Colleges affiliated to the University. It also provided that at least one disabled person must be appointed in each college during the academic year 1994-95. The Executive Council's vision is clear from the fact that what it did by aforesaid Resolution ulti...

Smt Shobha Suresh Jumani Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)589; 90(2001)DLT348; 2001(58)DRJ42; 2001(74)ECC567

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ( in short the Constitution) legality, validity and virus of the order dated 16.11.1995 passed by respondent No.1 (Union of India through its Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance) has been challenged. Said order was passed in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the Act), for detaining Suresh Manoharlal Jumani. Present petition has been filed by wife of said Suresh Manohar Lal Jumani. Prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and or any other appropriate writ directing not to execute the said order. A copy of the order however,has not been annexed to the petition. Stand of the petitioner in essence is that such a prayer has to be accepted as (a) there has been delay in execution of the order of detention, (b) there was non- consideration of the representati...

Anupam Guar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)247; 90(2001)DLT503

S.K. Mahajan, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.2. The petitioner claims himself to be a permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In terms of the memo of understanding between the Medical Council of India and the Ministry of Higher Secondary and Special Education of the then USSR, the Govt. of India used to nominate 50 Indian students for under-graduate medical education and 50 students for post-graduate level medical education in the medical institutions in the erstwhile USSR. In terms of the Bulletin of Information for Admission in USSR, an entrance test is held and the students used to be selected strictly in order of merit for admission to the under-graduate and post-graduate level medical education in the institutions in Russia. Petitioner appeared in the entrance examination conducted on All India basis by the Medical Council of India for admission in one of the colleges in the erstwhile USSR...

M/S. Karan Industries and Sh. Satish Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants filed this application for restoration of the appeals.3. The Tribunal, vide Stay Order No. S/620-21/2000-NB (S) dated 07.09.2000 directed the applicants to deposit whole amount of penalties. The case was adjourned for 6.11.2000 for reporting compliance. This order was dispatched to the appellants on 13.09.2000.When the case was listed on 06/11/2000, none appeared on behalf of the appellants nor any evidence was produced to show the compliance of the stay order hence the appeal was dismissed.4. Today, ld. Consultant, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the appellants had not complied with the stay order nor they are in a position to comply with the order. He also submits that the stay order was never received by the applicants. As the appellants had not complied with the stay order nor they are willing to comply with the stay order, I find no merit in the restoration of appeal application and the same is rejected. (Dictated in Court)....

M/S. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The present appeal has arisen consequent upon the remand order of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/1613/96-NB dt. 20.6.96 in the following terms: "We have heard both sides. The question for determination are basically whether modvat credit in respect of these inputs was reversed and whether remaining goods wee actually consumed in the manufacture of the final product. Our attention has been drawn by the ld. C.A. in their reply to the show cause notice at page 30 of the paper book where they had taken these pleas. We however, find that the Collector has not given any specific finding on these pleas. Since basically the question is whether credit was reversed and remaining inputs were actually consumed, we consider it a fit case for remand. We therefore, dispense with the pre-deposit of duty and remand the case to the Commissioner for de novo decision after ascertaining whether credit was reversed and whether remaining inputs were ultimately used in the manufacture of the finished...

Surinder Kr. Garg Vs. Cce, Gurgaon

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT420TriDel

1. On a careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, I find that this case requires to be finally disposed of at this stage.Therefore, I allow the present application unconditionally and proceed to dispose of the appeal on its merits.2. The appellant was one of the Directors of M/s Delta Insecticides Ltd. at the material time. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.4,87,131/- against the company and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. The adjudicating authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.4,80,000/- on the director (present appellant) under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944, on the basis of a finding that the appellant had indulged in acts of omission and commission in contravention of various provisions of the Central Excise Rules.Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, both the Company and the Director preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). While those a...

M/S. Avichal Textile Mills (P) Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, whereby the annual capacity of production of Hot Air Stenter was determined under Sec. 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While determining the annual capacity of production, the Commissioner also had taken into consideration the length of galleries installed to stenter.3. The contention of the appellants is that impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.The appellants also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs C.C.E., Jaipur reported in 2001 (42) RLT 429, wherein the Larger Bench held that the length of galleries is not to be taken in to account while computing the production capacity of stenter.4. As the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants, the order is passed in violation to the principles ...

M/S. Stainless India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal in this case relates to the admissibility of modvat credit under the provisions of Rule 57A on the following inputs. (i) "Purging cone and (ii) Whytheat-A & Whytheat-K".2. The total amount of modvat credit involved in respect of the above items is Rs.1,20,392/- The appellants are the manufacturers of S.S.Flats, S.S. Billets, Rounds and M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodhpur vide his order dt. 9.12.97 denied the modvat credit on Purging cone by observing that "Purging cone" is used in the laddle to pass Argon gas for purifying the metal, as such, therefore, it appears to be equipment rather than an input under the definition of Rule 57A.In respect of the other items (SIC) Whytheat-A & Whytheat-K, it is observed by the original authority that these goods are used for patching the laddle and such goods are refractory materials and are not covered under Rule 57A. These findings of...