Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Clutch Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having carefully examined the records and heard both sides, I find that this is a fit case for final disposal at this stage. Therefore, I allow the present application and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.2. The appellants had taken modvat credit on inputs to the extent of Rs. 43,943/- on the strength of invoices issued by dealers. The credit so taken was disallowed by adjudicating authority. The assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority upheld the order of the adjudicating authority upheld the order of the adjudicating as per order dated 27.6.2000. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.3. Ld. Advocate, Sh. D.K. Tyagi for the appellants, reiterating the grounds of the appeal, submits that 1d. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order without affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. I have noted from the impugned order that two opportunities were given to the appellants for bei...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Super Electronics Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this application, the department claims that the following question of law has arisen from Final Order No. A/115-117/99-NB(S) dated 17.2.299 passed by the Bench in Appeal No. E/895-896 and 934/96-NB(SM). "Whether gate passes issued prior to 1.4.94 but endorsed on or after that date i.e. 1.4.94 would fall under the coverage Entry No. 10 in the table to the Notification No. 16/94-CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 and would consequently become eligible document for taking credit under Modvat Scheme." 2. I have heard ld. JDR, Sh. A.K. Jain for the applicants. There is no representation for the respondents.3. The question of law stated above has since been settled in favour of the assessees by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a reference from this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Medicraft (2000(42) RLT475.Therefore, no such question now survives for any further reference to any High Courts. The application is rejected....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Fujitsu India Telecom Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT963TriDel

1. The respondents manufacture Digital Telephone Switching System and accessories classifiable under Chapter heading 8517.00. They availed MODVAT credit on certain Inputs/Capital goods under Rule 57A and 570 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which have been denied by the Additional Commissioner Central Excise, Chandigarh by his order dated 2.4.97. The total amount of credit is disallowed to the respondents by the Additional Commissioner in her order is Rs.63,017/-. The party filed an appeal against the above order of the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 15.1.99, allowed the appeal of the party setting aside the order passed by the Original authority.2. The Revenue are in appeal against the above order of the Commissioner. I have heard Shri Swatantra Kumar, JDR for the appellants and Shri Surinder Jain, Manager of the Respondent Company. My finding in respect of each of the items under consideration in this appeal are ap...

Union of India and ors. Vs. B.N. Jha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT581; 2001(58)DRJ765

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.1.1999 delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 999 of 1992.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispo(SIC) of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-3. respondent B.N. Jha, on 19.7.1990 was posted as Dy. Commandant in the Basis Training Centre of the Border Security Force, Training Centre and School (for short hereinafter referred as TC&S;) at Hazaribagh. The TC&S; had three wings which were located in the same campus at Hazaribagh headed by Mr.B.S. Garcha, DIG and Commandant. He was overall in charge of all the three wings mentioned hereinafter. The details of which are set out as under:- TC&S (Commanded by DIG) ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- (1) (2) (3) Basic Trg Centre Specialist Trg Centre Administrative Wing (Commanded by & School (Commanded by Commandant) (Commanded by C...

Sh. Prabhu Dayal Vs. M.C.D. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)911; 90(2001)DLT710; 2001(58)DRJ677

ORDERA.K.Sikri, J.1. Plaintiff is the co-owner of property bearing No. RZ-22/295/2 situated in the extended abadi of village Bijwasan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property'). Other co-owners are his family members consisting of his wife Smt.Phoolo Devi and son Gajraj Singh. Threatened with demolition action by the defendants MCD and DDA, the plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction labelling any such threatened action as illegal and contrary to provisions of law. He thereforee prays that decree of permanent/perpetual injunction in his favor and against the defendants be passed restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful use, occupation or enjoyment of the suit property or from in any manner demolishing/sealing any portion of the suit property. In the plaint it is averred that plaintiff and his family members have been residing in the suit property for decades. They are in actual and peaceful occupation and enjoyment of that property w...

M/S Texmaco Limiteds Vs. Shri Roshan Singh and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR138]; (2001)IILLJ982Del

ORDER1. A large number of Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.2.1992 by which a large number of writ petitions were disposed of. The questions of law involved in these appeals are exactly identical, thereforee, we propose to dispose of these appeals by one common judgment. The learned Single Judge also disposed of all the writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the facts of one writ petition. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the facts of only LPA No. 58/1992 arising out of writ petition No.1110/89 in order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case. 3. Respondent No.1 joined the appellant company on 1st June, 1943. On 2.1.1964 he was allotted a residential quarter in the premises of the appellant mill. The respondent retired from service on 6.6.1983. The respondent was allotted a quarter on leave and license basis on the specific condition that he would vacate the accomm...

Mrs. Satya Dhawan Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)273; 91(2001)DLT353

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Appellant's property no.6 situate at Jantar Mantar Road was assessed to house tax for 1994-95 and 1995-96. A demand of Rs.34 lacs and odd was raised against her. She filed C.W.420/1996 to challenge this on the ground that tax was not livable as the construction of the building was incomplete. Her writ petition was dismissed by writ court by impugned order dated 8.7.1996 for availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 115 of NDMC Act and on the strength of some judgments of the Supreme Court.2. Appellant feels aggrieved of this and has filed appeal to assail the writ court order. Her case is that writ court was bound to entertain her writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Her counsel Mr. Narula submitted that writ court could not dismiss her writ petition as she had challenged the very basis of levy which was not attracted to incomplete constructions.3. Merit of the matter apart, we see no infirmity in the impugne...

M/S. Duggar Fiber Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.C.D. (Desu)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)823; 90(2001)DLT731; 2001(3)RAJ127

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. It appears that this is was not numbered by the registry inadvertently. Let it be numbered.2. Petitioner had filed the objections under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act' for short) which was registered as Suit No.990/A/92. By order dated 3rd February, 1995 direction was issued that the arbitration agreement be filed. Mr. Gian Chand Jain, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes raised in the petition. Although with this order nothing survived as far as main suit was concerned, however, it appears that as petitioner had also filed is No. 2399/92 along with the Suit in which petitioner was praying for interim order. By order dated 3rd February, 1995 it was directed that respondent shall not discontinue the electricity of the petitioner on account of non-payment of the disputed bill (subject matter of arbitration) till the award is made by the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner was however requi...

M/S. P.C. Chandha and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)867; 90(2001)DLT724

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This petition under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act' for short) poses an interesting question for determination. It involves the interpretation of Clause 24 of the Contract between the parties dealing with the arbitration vis-a-vis Clause 20(3) relating to jurisdiction of courts.2. The respondent/UOI through DGS&D; had invited tenders and petitioner was also one of the bidders. His tender was accepted vide letter dated 8th January, 1979 which was for supply of 26060 ltrs. of 20 ltrs. packs and 23,155 ltrs. in 5 litre packs of pain for RFU finishing glass G.S. brushing oil gloss green Brumswick Middle ISC No. 226 specification IS-119-1962 class B. The petitioner could not effect the complete supply of the goods in question. Respondent by letter dated 11th March, 1981 cancelled the contract invoking Clause 14(7)(iii) of DGS&D; 168(Revised Conditions) as the contract was governed by these general conditions. Thereafter vide letter dated 23rd ...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. P.K. JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)915; 92(2001)DLT211; 2001(59)DRJ822; (2001)IILLJ892Del

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the Code) involves the following questions which were formulated for adjudication by order dated 24-4-1995 :-1. Whether the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have put the correct interpretation to the provisions of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 as well as the to the Article of Association of the appellant Bank? 2. Whether the courts have misinterpreted and misapplied the law by directing automatic promotion to respondent No.1 when admittedly all persons were selected by the process of an interview? 3. Whether the Court were correct in directing promotion of respondent no 1 to a higher post and without the usual process of selection?2. Background facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved are essentially as follows:-Appellant Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1) wa...