Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Shri Sohan Lal and Anothers Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)267; 91(2001)DLT423; 2002(61)DRJ816

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. These Letters Patent appeals are directed against the judgments dated 12th October, 1979 and 15th October, 1979 of the Learned Single Judge of this Court by which market value of land of the appellants acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') has been determined on common materials and considerations. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Pursuant to the notification dated 3rd September, 1957 issued under Section 4 of the Act, land of the appellants (LPA Nos. 109/80, 114/80 & 115/80) in village Shakurpur was acquired. After dividing the acquired land into four categories, the Collector fixed the market value at Rs.2850/-, Rs.2000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- per bigha respectively. Appellants not having accepted the offer contained in the award, sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge in proceedings pursuant to which the Additional District Judge enhanced th...

Om Wati and ors. Vs. Mohd. DIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002ACJ868; 2001IVAD(Delhi)246; 91(2001)DLT184; 2001(60)DRJ799

B.A. Khan, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of one accident involving a limited question of the extent of the insurer's liability and whether claimants in LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) were liable to forego their 30% share of compensation because they had failed to plead driver and owner and insurer of the car involved in the accident. LPAs (59, 60 and 61/1993) are filed by claimants questioning forfeiture of their 30% share of compensation amounted and the other set of appeals ( Nos. 90, 91 and 92/1993) are preferred by the Insurance Company pleading limited liability up to Rs. 50,000/-. 2. One Sanjeev Kumar was driving his Car No. HRH-24 with two others-Shiv Singh and Sat Pal on 27.5.1979 when it was hit by a Truck No. DLL-5052 coming from opposite direction. All the three sustained injuries and died in the process. Their LRs filed claim petitions which were resisted by the Insurance Company on the plea of its limited liability of Rs. 50,000/-. The company took the plea in its written s...

Jindal Photo Films Limited Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2790

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of the view expressed by learned Single Judge in two decision in Surrender Sethi v. State, : 64(1996)DLT813 and Dutt Enterprises Ltd. v. State, : 64(1996)DLT815 , reference has been made by another learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. Dispute relates to the desirability to stipulating time limit for recording preliminary evidence in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act'). Hon'ble referring Judge felt that stipulation of time limit for recording of preliminary evidence as was directed in those two cases, is clearly beyond the legislative prescription. The observations in the aforesaid two cases, which the Hon'ble referring Judge felt not to be in order, are as follows : In Surrender Sethi's case (supra) reference was made to Dutt Enterprises case (supra) and it was inter alias held as follows:'It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that by an order passed on 16th August, ...

Chander Mohan Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)29; 2001CriLJ2636; 90(2001)DLT507; 2001(58)DRJ703

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge finding that the appellant was guilty of committing the murder of his wife Veena. Veena was married to the appellant on 26.5.1983. At the time of marriage it would appear that the appellant did not have the capacity to make money and what he was getting by lending books was very meagre. Seeing the plight ofthe couple PW 1, the father of Veena, and his son Vijay Kumar PW 3 had started business of making 'Tawa & Karahi' at Gautam Vihar and the factory was established taking the appellant as a partner. In all fairness PW 1 having invested Rs. 15,000/- gave the appellant 1/3rd share. As the ill-luck would have it, the business did not prosper. The shutters had to be put down within a year from its commencement. That was the genesis of the misunderstanding between the appellant and the in-laws. PW 1 and PW 3 called upon the appellant to make goods his 1/3rd share of loss ...

Coal India Ltd. Vs. P.O. (Labour Court-3) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR929]; (2001)IILLJ45Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. By the order dated August 12, 1999, this writ petition was directed to be listed for hearing in the week commencing from December 13, 1999. Thereafter on February 16, 2001 this petition was shown in the advance cause list for hearing in the week commencing from February 19, 2001. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing on February 19, 2001 when in the interest of justice orders were deferred though counsel for respondent No. 2 was present. There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner even today. Accordingly, the writ petition which is of the year 1992 is being taken up today for hearing.2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states this Court had directed that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses be paid to counsel for respondent No. 2-workman. He further says that this order had also not been compiled with up to date.3. The respondent No. 2 was working as a part-time sweeper on daily wage basis @ Rs. 10/- pe...

Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the Act), is directed against order dated 11.5.2000 passed by West District Forum No. III in Complaint No. 4357/1998 titled Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal v. Modern Threads (I) Ltd., whereby appellant was directed to pay Rs. 4,608/- to the complainant along with the interest @ 15% on Rs. 11,608/- from 24.1.1998 to 23.7.1998 and on Rs. 7,608/- from 23.7.1998 to 28.8.1998 and on Rs. 4,068/- from 29.8.1999. Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- onwards cost of litigation to the respondent. 2. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal in brief are that respondent had invested a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in Fixed Deposit Scheme on 24.1.1997. Appellant failed to pay back the said amount with approved rate of interest on maturity and respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. Appellant in its written submission before the District Forum pleaded that C...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This ROM petition is filed by the Revenue in respect of the CEGAT Final Order No. A/108/99-NB (SM) dated 9.12.97.2. The issue in this case before the Bench was whether the modvat credit could be availed on the invoices issued in May, 1994 and endorsed subsequently. The Bench in the impugned order on due consideration of the submissions made before it, held the view that in the absence of any dis-pute of receipt of duty paid inputs and utilisation of the same in the manufacture of final product, invoices issued after 1.4.94 and endorsed subsequent there to can be treated as valid duty paying documents. Accordingly the bench allowed the appeal of the party.3. I have heard Shri K.Panchat Charam, JDR for the petitioners. The respondents are not represented. In the present petition it is contended by the Revenue that at the time of passing the impugned order, this issue was pending before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and subsequently the Larger Bench in its decision in Balmer Lawrie...

Shri S.K. Goel, Shri Ravi Kumar Vs. Cc Lucknow

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These three stay applications arise out of the three appeals filed by the appellants against the common order in appeal dated 9.11.99 vide which the Commissioner(Appeals) had confirmed the imposition of penalty of Rs.20,000/- each imposed on them by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs through order in original dated 11.1.99 on account of recovery of 4 pieces of gold biscuits from each of them of them on their interception on 24.8.97 by the Customs Officers, Barhni which they were carrying as peddlers for Rakesh Kumar Garg who financed the same and to whom they were required to deliver at Agra.2. The learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for the total waiver of the penalty amount imposed on each of the appellants on the main ground that they are unemployed youth and have got no independent source of income for making the pre-deposit of the penalty amount and that on merits their appeals are likely to be accepted as they have a strong prima facie case.3. On the other hand, the...

M/S. National Electronics Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

None for the appellants, for today's hearing, notice was sent to them on 11.1.2001 on their address as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, but none has come present on their behalf. No request for adjournment has also been received from their side. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution....

G.C. Ahuja C/O M/S Apollo Electric Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. On 10.2.97 a team of Central Excise officers MOD-IV, Delhi visited the factory premises of M/s Apollo Electric Industries. On verification of the records maintained by the party, it was found that a quantity of 1920 Kgs. of PVC compound and 950 Kgs. bars copper wire were found in excess of the recorded balance of RG-23A Part-I register. On these quantities of the raw material, the party had already taken the modvat credit. It was further observed that 1,55,000 mtrs of PVC insulated drop wire with fibre glass roving which is the finished product of the party was also found in excess of the recorded balance in RG-I register. Accordingly, these goods were seized and the proceedings were initiated against the party. These proceedings culminated in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, MOD-IV, New Delhi passing an order dated 2.12.97 in which he ordered for the confiscation of the impugned raw material and finished goods. The Assistant Commissioner in his order gave an option to the...