Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

C.C.E., Delhi Vs. M/S. Indian Aluminium Cables

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court : "1. Whether the word 'printed' used in Rule 52A(6) of Central Excise Rules would mean 'pre-printed' as prescribed by the CBEC or a liberal dictionary meaning could be accepted for this term. 2. Whether under the Rule 52-A(6) the procedural requirements made by the statute could be over-looked by the Cegat on the plea that substantive benefit cannot be denied for a mere technical lapse".2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of M/s. Aluminium Cables, pointed out that the Tribunal, vide order No. /R/03/2001-NB(S) dated 29.12.2000 declined the request of the revenue for referring the same question of law.4. As the Tribunal, vide order no. R/03/2001-NB(S) dated 29.12.2000 had already declined the prayer of the revenue for referring the same question of law, the present application, in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal, is dismissed....

M/S. S.N. Soni Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(129)ELT728TriDel

1. Indian currency worth Rs. 2,73,750 and a Maruti Van belonging to the present applicant were seized by the Customs Officers and the same were ultimately ordered to be released to him by the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Customs. The order of the Additional Commissioner was reviewed and, in pursuance thereof, an appeal was preferred by the department to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The present appeal filed by the party is against the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to the remand order, the Additional Commissioner took proceedings in a hurried manner and posted the matter for personal hearing from time to time. The present application before the Bench is virtually for a stay of such proceedings of the Additional Commissioner till final disposal of the present appeal.2. On a careful examination of the records and on hearing both...

V.B. Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ767

ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. In L.P.A. No. 416/1998, a Division Bench of this Court had found that the Policy of the Respondents to give extension of service to only those Airmen whose performance was above a certain standard/benchmark, was perfectly legal. It was held that no discrimination was made out.2. The Petitioner is a Junior Warrant Officer in the Indian Air Force. He has been granted an extension after his superannuation. The criteria/policy for the grant of extensions of engagement has been set down in writing. One of the stipulations is that persons similarly placed as the Petitioner should obtain 72.5% in their ACR for the requisite period. Ms. Rekha Palli, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has submitted that after taking into account the marks awarded to the Petitioner, he did not fulfill this condition. Hence, he was not considered for an extension of his engagement.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made detailed submissions assailing the ACR for the year ...

M/S. Aggarwal Bandhu (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. M/S. National Seeds Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)146; 2001(1)RAJ377

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The petitioner, a Private Ltd. Company, is having its registered office at 2637 Naya Bazar, Delhi and Mr B.K. Aggarwal is its Managing Director. The respondent is a Government of India undertaking. Through this petition the petitioner has sought direction to the respondent-Corporation for filing the Arbitration Agreement and appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause and refer the disputes to the said Arbitrator. 2. Put briefly the facts are as under:- The respondent corporation invited tenders for supply of DW jute tarpaulin bags. Petitioner company purchased tender and applied for supply of aforesaid bags and was allotted work vide purchase order No.PUR/NSC/2(47-3)/92-93 dated 10.04.1992. Both the parties entered into an agreement on 01.06.1992 as per clause 15 Section (1), part-B of the tendered documents. Petitioner supplied total quantity of 4,50,400 DW jute tarpaulin bags to the respondent.3. As per agreement 90% payment was to be cleared wit...

Shri Chhammi Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT148

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of an order releasing his alleged arrears of pension amounting to Rs.17,790.20 for the period from 1.9.1982 to 21.1.1985. The petitioner worked with the respondent Corporation as an Overseer (Junior Engineer). He reached his age of superannuation on 31.8.1982. The petitioner claims that he was allowed to continue in employment by the respondent Corporation till 25.1.1985 and thereforee, he is entitled to be paid pension for the period between 1.9.1982 to 21.1.1985 which is not paid. It is disclosed from the records that was registered as C.W.P.No.1356/1087 recording the undertaking of the respondents that they wold calculate the amount of pension, gratuity and provident fund that was due to the petitioner in accordance with the Rule and also undertook to make the payment. The petitioner, thereafter filed a contempt petition in this court alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid un...

Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Rajender Kumar Rastogi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)54; 90(2001)DLT325

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit.With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.2. By order dated 21.12.99, the trial Court after having come to a finding that the petitioner was liable to pay rent@Rs. 6,000/- per month directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.8.96@Rs. 6,000/- per month and continue to pay the same at the same rate for the subsequent period every month till the final decision in the suit. This order was not challenged by the petitioner. Since this order was not complied with the plaintiff/respondent filed an application under Section 151, CPC before the Trial Court for striking out the defense of the petitioner. The defendant also filed an application that due to poor financial condition of the defendant he may be granted time to deposit the amount directed by the Court vide order dated 21.12.99 in Installments of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Both these applications were disposed of by the learned Trial Court by order dated...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Escorts Transmissions Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)147; 91(2001)DLT370

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of Revenue, following questions has been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal'):'(1) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Diesel Generating Set costing Rs. 6,50,440/- is entitled to depreciation under Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 1975-76.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the assessed's claim for depreciation under Section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of Machinery for manufacture of gears under Item No. 10, Machine tools in the Ninth Schedule of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76. Relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1974.2. Background facts, in a nut...

Metalex Pipes Ltd. Vs. Spark Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)240; 90(2001)DLT482

S.K. Mahajan, J.Admit.1. With the consent of parties the matter has been heard and is being disposed of finally.2. On 18.9.91 plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 3,75,000/- on the allegations that the plaintiff had given certain advance to the defendants for the supply of material by the defendants to the plaintiff and since the material supplied by the plaintiff was not according to the specification, the same was rejected by the departments to whom it was supplied by the plaintiff. Plaintiff consequently claims refund of the amount paid by way of advance to the defendant. The defendant also filed a suit of recovery of Rs. 3,25,000/- against the petitioner for the balance price of the goods. Both the suits were tried together by the Court of the Additional District Judge. After evidence of parties was concluded, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151, CPC to place on record certain documents and to lead further evidence to prove the said do...

Auto PIn India (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Director of Enforcement of Foreign ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ57

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.9.1982 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board whereby the Board has heldthat as far as Show Cause Notice V is concerned, that loan was given to the appellant, Shri Gill, on 14.6.1974 i.e. after the 1973 Act came into force on 1.1.974. So far as the loan mentioned in Show Cause Notices II to IV are concerned, the definition relied upon by the counsel will not be of much assistance. The accepted legal principle is that a penal statute should be strictly construed and the concept of a person resident in India, being an innovation introduced in the 1973 Act, it will not be correct to read the idea underlying the definition contained in Sec. 2(p) of the 1973 Act into the 1947 Act. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notices II to IV were held to be in violation of the Act. The learned Appellate Board, however, gave benefit of the definition ascribed to a person resident in India as per the 1973 Act...

Director General, Air Force Naval Housing Board Vs. Group CaptaIn M.M. ...

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 to as the Act), is directed against the order dated 24.5.1996 passed by District Forum II (South Forum) in Complaint Case No. 2866/94 titled Group Captain M.M. Saigal v. Director General, Air Force Naval Housing Board, whereby the learned District Forum directed the appellant to call upon the allottee of Flat No. G-159, Sector-25 Commodore V.K. Kapoor (Retd.) to restore the flat to its original position within a specific time and in the event of his failure to take appropriate legal action against him, after cancelling his allotment so as to restore the flat to its original condition. It was further directed that appellant should also pay Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent within 2 months. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 3. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal in short are that the appellant Air Force Naval Ho...