Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S. Sun Shine International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. No one appeared for the appellants. Notice for today's hearing was sent on 19.2.2001 and a copy of the notice was endorsed to the Counsel on record. The appellants have written as under: "With reference to the above noted subject, it is to inform you that our Business Partner is on Export Promotion Tour and busy in personal matters and i not available to attend the date fixed for personal hearing on 22.3.2001 and is available in the last week of May, 2001 for the purpose. It is, therefore, requested to please fix the next date for personal hearing in the last week of May, 2001 and inform us and oblige." 2. The Counsel on record has not respondended and is not present. Shri M.M. Dubey, ld. DR is present for the respondent Revenue and submits that there is no ground for adjournment and prays for deciding the stay matter on merits after hearing the Departmental Representative.3. On going through the facts on record, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter. The...

M/S. Aps Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT567TriDel

1. For hearing their appeal the appellants M/s.APS Associates (P) Ltd. are required to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.37,69,544/- alongwith interest as per the Rules. Shri R. Santhanam, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Commissioner of Central Excise has not fully followed the directions of the Honourable High Court and this Tribunal and that certain adjustments which the appellants had claimed had not been taken note of in the order of quantification in pursuance of the Collector's order as intimated to the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner under letter dated 1.1.2001. He also submits that certain abatement claims of the appellants are also pending before the Department. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that whatever directions were issued by the Tribunal and the High Court they had been taken note of and a detailed speaking order has been passed by the adjudicating authority. The adjustment to the extent of Rs.1,27,63,769/- has been made. After heari...

M/S. R.S. Industries (Rm) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In these two appeals, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his two Orders No.124/96 and No. 134/96 both dated 14.2.96 has disallowed the modvat credit of Rs.1,11,115/- and Rs.50,842/- respectively under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants have been asked to reverse the aforestated amounts of credit on the ground that they had availed the same on the strength of challans issued by the depots of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), which reflected excess amount than the duty paid on these items by the plants of M/s. SAIL. The Asst. Commissioner in his order has observed that according to the modvat credit scheme, only the credit to the extent of duty paid on inputs can be availed. If duty has not been paid, credit cannot be availed which is a well established principle in law. He has observed that the party before him did not make any submission with regard to the fact that the credit availed by them was in excess of the duty actually pa...

M/S. Paragon Textiles Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce Bombay

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In their communication dated 19.3.2001 the appellants, M/s. Paragon Textile Mills Ltd. have submitted that they would like to withdraw their miscellaneous application. Shri P.K. Jain, SDR has no objection.The application is dismissed as withdrawn....

Shri Rajinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)242; 91(2001)DLT170; 2001(58)DRJ342

ORDERKhan, (J)1. Petitioner was first appointed Peon on 28.12.1979. He was thereafter promoted Junior Computer Operator on adhoc basis on 24.10.1980 and was later regularised on the post on 28.8.1986. The post of Junior Computer Operator was subsequently redesignated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the revised pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 and he came to hold it and was shown seniormost in the seniority list, dated 1.5.1996.2. It all started when petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post of DEO-Grade B by order dated 15.1.1997. He felt aggrieved and made series of representations which were rejected by respondents. He thereafter filed OA No.2488/97 before CAT claiming promotion to Grade-B post on the plea that under Recruitment and Promotion Rules this post was to be filled up 100% by promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis and he being seniormost was to be promoted to it as a matter of course. He also complained that his representations were mechanically rejected. He accordingly p...

Ms. Radhika Khanna Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT96

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Nand Lal Aggarwal, applicant filed this application on 17th December 1998 alleging that the case set up by Ms. Radhika Khanna (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') in the petition filed under sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was allowed by the other dated 7th March 1994, is that Smt. Kamla Khanna, her mother and wife of S.D.Khanna died on 12th June 1983 leaving behind a will dated 6th March 1981 in her favor. It is further alleged that petitioner's father S.D.Khanna filed a petition for grant of probate before the District Judge, Delhi and her interest in that petition was not properly looked after by him. In response to petition, S.D.Khanna filed 'No Objection/reply' wherein it has been stated that he is in possession of will dated 26th March 1979 left behind by his wife under which he is the beneficiary of her estate. He was further stated that he did not know about the will dated 6th March 1981 and existence thereof was disclose...

Sh. Prakash Sharma Vs. Delhi Dev. Authoirty and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)109; 91(2001)DLT393; 2001(59)DRJ105; 2001(3)RAJ314

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both the parties have filed objections against the award dated 29.6.89 which registered as a suit No.1811/89 for making it a rule of the court. However, the petitioner/claimant has withdrawn the objection as to claim No.2. However, the objections filed by the respondent are with regard to claims 1,2,4 and 5 and counter claims 1 and 2. As regards counter claim No.1 the claimant has no objection if the same is allowed as there is no dispute as to claim No.1 which was with regard to penalty imposed under clause 2 of the contract.2. As regards counter claim No.2 the respondent had sought compensation under clause 14 on account of defective work done by the petitioner.Since this counter claim is purely based upon facts, the award in this regard can not be interfered with as it is beyond the purview of the court to re-assess or re-appraise the evidence or material upon which the finding of the arbitrator is based.3. The tenor of the objections in respect of remaining c...

M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Vikram Singh Mehta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1045; 91(2001)DLT593; 2001(59)DRJ213

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Whether or not learned Single Judge in the impugned order passed on 19.12.2000 has correctly exercised discretion by allowing plaintiffs/respondents to amend the plaint. This is the short question arising for determination in this appeal preferred by the defendant.2. On 12.11.1997 plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant claiming a decree for possession of property known as No.7/25, Nazafgarh Road, Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and for recovery of Rs.6 lakhs towards arrears of damages @ Rs.2 lakhs per month w.e.f. 12.8.1997 and for future damages @Rs.2 lakhs per month from the date of institution of the suit till delivery of possession along with the interest on damages @ [email protected]. with effect from the date of the institution of the suit.3. The suit was instituted alleging that the defendant was inducted on the land as a lessee through agreement dated 12.1.1965 on a monthly rental of Rs.3,850/-. Lease initially was for a period of three years whic...

Shri Chander Bhan Vs. Delhi State Co-operative Bank Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT726; (2002)IVLLJ883Del

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming payment of his retiral benefits including gratuity, cash in lieu of earned leave, bonus etc. and the salary for the period July 1989 to January 1990 Along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it fell due to the date of its final payment.2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent bank in the year 1959 and he retired from the post of Administrative Officer Grade I on 21.1.2990. The petitioner served in different branches of the respondent bank on different posts and rendered his services in the bank till he was retired from service. It is stated that in spite of the fact that the petitioner retired from service he was not paid the retiral benefits including the gratuity, earned leave encashment, bonus and the salary for the period July 1989 to January 1990. It is contended that the aforesaid amount is not being paid by the respondents on the pretext that the loan amount sanctio...

M/S. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per the order of Stay dated 01.02.2001, pre-deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakh should have been made within a period of four weeks from that date. The appellants have made the deposit, but beyond the period of four weeks. In this application, they prayed for acceptance of the pre-deposit and to condone the delay caused in making the deposit.2. Heard ld. Counsel representing the appelants and the Departmental Representative.3. The Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the condonation of delay in making the deposit on the ground that the order dated 01.02.2001 specifically stated that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, will result in the stay order being vacated. In view of this specific direction, the stay orders stand vacated and petition praying for stay also stood dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have the period, fixed for making the deposit, extended.4. Even though in the order dated 01.02.2001, it was observed that failure to deposit the amoun...