Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

Shri Sanjay Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The adjudicating authority has confiscated goods covered by 4 Bills of Entry under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 declared to be "polyester warp knit fabrics" imported by the appellant herein through M/s.Hind Overseas, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, on the ground that the goods were not as described but were "polyester knit pile fabrics" and for the reason that there was a misdeclaration even as to the value of the goods (the value was declared as 1.80 US$ per kG, while the prevailing rate was US$ 2.25 per Kg.) with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.25 lakhs. In addition a penalty of Rs.5 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and Shri Ashok Mehta, learned DR.3. We note that the appellant does not dispute that the goods were "polyester knit pile fabrics" as held by the Revenue. We also note that, although the appellant had deposed in his statement recorded on...

M/S. Phoenix Electric (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT109TriDel

1.This appeal involves the MODVAT credit amounting the Rs.7,379.28. The appeal was dismissed, vide Final Order No.A/1919/2000/NB (SM) dated 10.10.2000 at the admission stage itself.2. The appellants filed the Restoration of Appeal Petition. The appellants are not represented. Shri Kamal Jeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants has, however, sent a letter dated 20.3.2001, in which it is stated that he is attending on his elder brother, who is admitted in PGI, Chandigarh. It is, therefore, requested that the matter may be adjourned to any other date. It is observed that the matter has already been adjourned twice over earlier at the request of the appellants. I am, therefore, not inclined to adjourn it any further.3. As already stated above, the present appeal was dismissed by the Bench at the admission stage itself. The appellants have shown scant interest in pursuing the ROA Petition filed by them as is evident from their constant absence from attending the hearings. The Restoration of...

M/S. Moinca Electronics Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC576

1. Heard the representative of the appellant and the ld. Departmental Representative.2. The Departmental Representative conceded the payment of duty by the appellant. According to him, appellant had also deposited 25 per cent of the penalty imposed on the appellant under the impugned order.3. As per the proviso to Section 11AC, the penalty will stand reduced to 25 per cent of the amount imposed where the duty demanded has been paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. In the instant case, since the duty demanded has been deposited within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order and also deposited 25 per cent of the penalty, no further amount need to be deposited by the appellant. As far as the company is concerned, no further amount needs to be paid. This means that the appeal is perfectly maintainable in terms of Section 35F of the Act. Office will post the appeal for final hearing to 08.05.2001....

Sh. Ashok Kumar Vs. Cc, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (i) absolutely confiscating certain number of foreign origin gold bars (found to have been smuggled into India) under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act and foreign currency (US $ and French franc) (found to be sale proceeds of smuggled goods) under Section 121 of the Act, (ii) confiscating a car (found to have been used for carrying the gold) with option for redemption on payment of a fine for Rs.5 lakhs, and (iii) imposing a personal penalty of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 112 (b) of the Act. The main ground of challenge in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner is that the appellant's Counsel was not given opportunity for cross-examining the Panch witnesses or for arguing the case.3. The Commissioner has noted in her order to the effect that Id.Advocate, Sh. Akshay Anand was personally heard. The same Advocate represents the appellants before me today and submits that he was, in fact, not so heard, nor was he given any ...

Shri Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As these OAs involve a common question of law the same are disposed of in this common order.3. The applicants who were Precision Mechanics (PMs) being appointed from 1978 to 1981 were promoted as Chargemen II and applicants 1 -4 and 8 were on the basis of DPC promoted as Chargemen-I being a selection post. By an order passed by the Government higher pay scale of Rs. 425-700 was accorded to PMs who were appointed upto 31.12.72. A number of other PMs also filed cases before the Tribunal and in one of the cases Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal decided that all PMs appointed upto 31.12.72 should be given the pay scale of Rs. 425-700. In OA-793/89, OA-810/89 and OA-223/90 Bangalore Bench allowed the relief to PMs appointed prior to 1.3.77 and given the actual financial benefits from 1.12.80. The PMs appointed after 1.12.80 were allowed the pay of Rs. 425-700 from the date of their initial appointment and given financial benefits from that date. The applicants were accordingly fixed in th...

Atanu Ghose Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)233; 2001CriLJ2445; 91(2001)DLT104

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner has come to this Court under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.922/200 registered at P.S. Kalkaji under Sections 420/406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. I have heard Mr. D.C. Mathur, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Rich Kapoor, learned counsel for the state.3. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the complainant Sashwat Sud filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi alleging commission of offences under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC by the petitioner Atanu Ghose and one Anido Ghosh. The allegations were that the petitioner by making false claims regarding his experience and research in the field of software solutions for oil sector induced the complainant to float a Company under the name of M/s. Neural Magic Systems in which the accused petitioner and his wife were also...

Press Council of India Vs. All India Small and Medium Newspapers Feder ... Overruled

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)221; AIR2001Delhi366; 91(2001)DLT255; 2001(58)DRJ723

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated August 18, 2000. The question involved in this appeal is whether a person who has held two terms as a member of the Press Council is ineligible for renomination for a third term. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- 2. In the year 1982 the second respondent was nominated as a member of the Press Council by the first respondent. The second respondent remained a member of the Press Council for a period of three years from 1982 to 1985. Again the first respondent in the year 1985 renominationthe second respondent for a second term. Accordingly, the second respondent remained member of the Press Council till 1988. The appellant by means of a communication dated November 21, 1997 informed the various Presidents of the associations of persons carrying on the business of management of the newspapers including respondent No.1 about the reconstitution of Press Counc...

Unity Engineers Vs. I.T.P.O.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)528; 91(2001)DLT350; 2001(59)DRJ173; 2001(3)RAJ304

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The solitary legal objection to the award dated 28th January, 1999 is that the arbitration proceedings were not maintainable as these were wholly barred by limitation by virtue of clause 25 of the contract which provides for referring the disputes within 90 days from the intimation that the final bill is ready for payment. Remaining objections are as to the findings of facts given by the Arbitrator which are not entertainable as reappraisal of evidence or revaluation or the assessment of the material of evidence on the record does not come within the purview of the Court.2. Recently the Supreme Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs . Union of India A& Anr. : AIR1999SC3804 made the following observations as to the role of the Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to such findings of the Arbitrator:-'Reappraisal of evidence by the Court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the Court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under S...

M/S. Polosingh and Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)819; 92(2001)DLT326; 2001(3)RAJ247

ORDERA.K. Sikari, J.1. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to Shri H.P. Patel, as sole Arbitrator, for adjudication. The learned Arbitrator adjudicated upon the disputes and returned his award dated 26th December, 1993. The said award was challenged in this Court by the Delhi Development Authority by filing objections which were decided by judgment dated 30th May, 1997. While rejecting all other objections, as far as award on claim no. 5 is concerned, this Court remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fresh determination in the light of observations made in the said Order. That is how this claim was reconsidered by the learned Arbitrator who has made and published the award dated 4th March, 1998. By means of IA. 7010 of 1999, Delhi Development Authority has filed its objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in respect of claim no.5. 2. Claim no.5 was preferred by the petitioner claiming loss of profit for pre-mature and wrong...

All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties (Ailfcl) and anr. Vs. Unio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi380; 90(2001)DLT805; 2001(59)DRJ281

ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J:1. The petitioner namely All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties (AILFCL) through its President Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a through CBI probe into the affairs of Medical Council of India, respondent No. 2 and Santosh Medical & Dental College, Ghaziabad respondent No. 4 which is being run by a Trust known as Maharaja Educational Trust, respondent No. 3 herein. The said Medical College got due affiliation from the Meerut University. The Trust had initially applied to the Government of India seeking permission to establish a medical college with 150 admissions annually. But vide letter dated 15.1.96, Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, granted permission under section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to admit only 50 students annually and this permission was granted for a period of one year to be renewed on yearly basis subject to the verification ...