Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

H.S. Bawa Vs. Mahinder Prakash

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)626; 96(2002)DLT347; 2002(61)DRJ877; 2002(1)JCC463

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.petitioner is seeking quashing of the 'summons' dated21.8.1998 issued by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,New Delhi summoning the petitioner as an accused underSections 323/325/342/427/506/34 IPC in the case 'MohinderPrashad v. M.R. Kathuria and Ors., inter-alia pleadingthat he was not named as an accused in the complaint;that the person arrayed as the accused No. 4 was 'D.S.Bawa' and the summons were issued in the name of 'H.S.Bawa' (petitioner). He also prayed for an inquiry againstthe erring officials in this regard. Para 3 of thepetition reads:-'That there is no reference of name ofthe petitioner, at all, in thecomplaint. inspire of this, the petitioner has been served with theaforesaid summons. It is respectfullysubmitted that reference of some ShriD.S. Bawa, Inspector of Customs,Preventive, is there at Sl. No. 4 of thecomplaint.It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was not posted as Inspector,Customs (Prev...

S. Munafa Vs. General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal arises out of an order of the learned District Forum-I dated 6.3.1996 passed in Complaint Case No. 1195/1993 entitled Shri S. Munafa v. MTNL. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant/complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein it was averred that the appellant being the subscriber of telephone No. 7514489 received a bill in the month of January, 1993 for Rs. 5,683/- for the billing period w.e.f. 1.2.1993 to 31.3.1993 which according to him was highly excessive and as such the appellant represented against the same to the concerned officials of the respondent vide representation dated 4.3.1993 and 9.3.1993. The said representation elicited no reply, on the contrary, the telephpone services of the appellant were disconnected on 23.3.1993. The appellant, therefore, lod...

M/S. E.C.E. Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts of the case are that appellants M/s ECE Industries Ltd., Sonepat, manufacture Electrical Transformers and components falling under sub heading No. 8504. They are also availing modvat credit facility. They received back defective electrical transformers in their factory for repairs within and beyond warrantee/gurantee period under Rule 173 H. During the checking of form-V register maintained under Rule 173 H, it was observed that the party was using modvat credit availed on the inputs in the repair of such defective transformers received by them for repairs. These transformers after repairs were being cleared at nil rate of duty. The party was neither reversing the modvat credit taken on such inputs used in the repair nor the duty was being paid on these inputs. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated against them and they were issued show cause notice dated 4.4.94, calling upon them to show cause why the duty amounting to Rs. 63,007.41 on inputs used in such defe...

Salmani Zamat Masjid and Educational Charitable Trust Vs. Delhi Develo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT143; 2002(61)DRJ787

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The petitioners Salmani Zamat Masjid & Educational Charitable Trust through its trustee Mohd. Abdul Hakeem has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ to restrain the respondents from demolishing the structure claimed to be a mosque situated at Village Budhela, New Delhi-110018. Further direction is sought for permitting the petitioners and other religious minded persons belonging to the Muslim Community to Community to enter into the said mosque and perform Namaz and other religious rights.4. The petitioner in support of its case annexed a trust deed as well as filed photographs on record, where persons numbering around 30 are shown to be praying and performing Namaz.5. The writ petition had come up on 3.7.1998, when the court directed issuance of notice. On an application bearing CM No. 6997/98, directions were also given for Assistant Engineer of DDA to carry out an inspect...

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahalaxmi Suppliers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ771

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The award dated 10.4.1996 has been sought to be made rule of the court.2. Through I.A. 7013/98, respondent has filed objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby respondent assailed the award mainly on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted firstly by ignoring the letters sent by the respondent pointing out the defects in the equipment supplied by the petitioner to the respondent and secondly by completely overlooking Clause 6 of the lease agreement dated 22.5.1990 and has also not taken into account various payments made by the respondent from time to time and has thereforee misconducted himself on factual matrix.3. The relevant facts need to be recapitulated in brief.4. The respondent had applied for Equipment Leasing Plant of Tyre Retreading Complete with 30 KVA Generating Sect with Kirloskar Engine and Kirloskar Alternator on lease under the Equipment Leasing Scheme. After considering the application, lease agre...

Anz Grindlays Bank Plc. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT829; 2002(61)DRJ789

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. By this common order, I shall be disposing of C.W.P. Nos. 295/1996, 2515/96 & 2516/96, as there is a common question regarding the location and user is of premises in residential areas as Banks. The writ petition No. 295/96 is taken as the lead case. 4. Petitioner M/s ANZ Grindlays Bank has sought a declaration that the business of banking, undertaken by petitioner of public utility service and hence was permissible in a residential area under the Master Plan of Delhi. In particular, a writ of certiorari was sought for quashing circular bearing No. F-1(1)/95/Banks/EB/505 dated 26.7.1995 issued by respondent No. 2, DDA as being vocative of Master Plan of Delhi, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Delhi Development Act. By the said letter dated 26.7.1995, the Commissioner (LM), DDA had informed the Bank that the Lt. Governor had been pleased to order that all...

India Foils Limited Vs. Sr Foils Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT824

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under the provisions of Section 433(e) read with Section 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act).2. According to the petitioner, the respondent owes a substantial amount to the petitioner. However, it is alleged that the respondent is unable to repay its debts. Consequently, the affairs of the respondent deserve to be wound up under the aforesaid provisions of the Act.3. According to the petitioner, the respondent had issued certain cheques to the petitioner but the same had bounced. Consequently, the petitioner sent notices dated 30th May, 2000 under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act demanding the amount from the respondent.4. The subject of the notices clearly mentions that these are notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.5. The concluding paragraph of the notices are the same and they read as follows:'My clients also reserve their rights to take suc...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Goyal Agro Food

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 15.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 657/2001 - entitled M/s. Goyal Agro Food v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent, M/s. Goyal Agro Food, through its proprietor, Shri Amit Goyal, had filed a complaint, before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Act averring that the respondent had applied for a new electricity connection and for that purpose had deposited a sum of Rs. 7,980/- with the appellant on 14.9.1999. The grievance of the respondent, in the complaint, filed by it, before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that despite completing all the formalities and making the necessary deposits, the electricity connection in favour of the respondent w...

A.R. Chadha (Decd. Represented by Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)256ITR100(Delhi)

1. Since these appeals, preferred by the assessee, relate to the same year and the facts are common, the same have been heard together and are decided by this consolidated order. We deal with the appeals separately hereunder :*** *** *** *** The appeal preferred is against the sustenance of penalty levied at Rs. 90,877 under Section 273 for the assessment year 1982-83. As mentioned above against the returned income of Rs. 7,750 the income assessed was at Rs. 19,12,061. During the course of assessment proceedings, according to the Assessing Officer, it was found that the assessee failed to file a statement of advance tax payable and accordingly penalty proceedings under Section 273 were initiated. The income assessed was reduced to Rs. 18,70,561 on redetermining certain issues restored to the Assessing Officer by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In response to the show-cause notice it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the charge has not been specified in the show-ca...

A.R. Chadha Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)80ITD56(Delhi)

1. Since these appeals, preferred by the assessee, relate to the same year and the (acts are common, the same have been heard together and are decided by this consolidated order, We deal with the appeals separately hereunder: 2. The appeal preferred is on quantum. The assessee originally filed a return declaring income of Rs. 7,750 on 22nd Sept., 1984. The assessee derived income from house property, share from a firm and interest. The AO assessed the total income at Rs. 19,12,061 by computing as under: Share of profit from the R.F. M/sA.R, Chadha & Co., as per assessment order of the firm : (The claim of interest of Rs. 7,75,080 is disallowed as discussed above) Amount surrendered by the assessee in petition under s. 273A (cash deposited in the bank) 2.1. On appeal, the issues relating to the following were restored to the AO for re-determination. (i) Quantum of interest for disallowance to be worked out after ascertaining facts; (ii) Addition under Section 2(22)(e) has made afte...