Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

M/S Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 1,82,625/- and penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh and for stay of recovery thereof pending the appeal before the Tribunal.3. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of duty to the aforesaid extent against these applicants and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. Aggrieved by the order of adjudication, the applicants preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed a stay application like the present one seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The stay application was disposed of by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as per order dated 01.02.2000, whereby the party was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs within 15 days under Section 35F the Central Excise Act. That order was received by the party of 03.02.2000. On 28.02.2000, i.e. after expiration of the stipulated period of 15 days, the party submitted an application to the Commissioner (Appeals) praying for a modification of the order...

Mr. Charanjit Singh Vs. Dr. Merchant Banking Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)805; 2001CriLJ2276; 90(2001)DLT484; 2001(58)DRJ168

ORDERR.C.Chopra, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 13.2.1998 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on the basis of which he was summoned in a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only)2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are that the respondent filed a complaint under section 138 of the Act against accused No.1 M/s Ganga Automobiles Limited and accused No.2 Ashwani Suri, a Director of the said Company. The complainant instead of mentioning the name of the petitioner or any other Director, as accused in the complaint mentioned at Sr. No.3 'other Directors M/S Ganga Automobiles Services Ltd., S-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi'. In the entire complaint neither the petitioner was named nor any allegation was made that he was also liable to be prosecuted by virtue of Section 142 of the ...

Ms. Kanchan B.R. Vs. Mr. Akash Alias Yusuf Hussain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)726; AIR2001Delhi318; 90(2001)DLT681; I(2001)DMC574; 2001(58)DRJ256

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Plaintiff (Wife) has pleaded that she is a Hindu and that the Defendant (Husband), had converted from Islam to Hinduism around the time of their marriage on 29.9.1993. There can be no controversy that a Hindu ceremony did take place, since the Plaintiff has filed photographs of the event with her Plaint. Predicated on this version of their marriage. The Plaintiff has invoked Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'H.A.& M. Act'), and has prayed for the allocation of property MA-1/4 - 3A, Garden Estate, Gurgaon, (hereinafter referred to for convenience as 'the matrimonial home'), as her exclusive separate residence. Consequential and ancillary injunctive reliefs have also been asked for by the Plaintiff. To the contrary, it is the Husband's case that the parties married each other on 26.8.93 in accordance with Muslim law after the Plaintiff embraced Islam. It is contended that the alleged marriage in the Arya...

Azadi Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)456; 90(2001)DLT766; 2001(58)DRJ317; [2001]252ITR471(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat,C.J.1. Alleging that certain actions/inactions on the part of the Income-tax authorities have caused huge loss to the public exchequer, this petitions stated to be in public interest has been filed.2. In a nutshell, the allegations are that in early 1994 Income-tax Department received reliable information to the effect that many multi-national companies operating in India are not fully declaring salaries/perks paid to their expatriate employees posted in India and in particular portion of the salaries paid to them outside India. Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) the entire salaries received by such expatriate employees posted in India are liable to be declared irrespective of the fact whether it was paid in India or abroad and has to be taxed in India.The only condition requisite for such declaration was that stay of such employee in India for the relevant financial year exceeds 183 days in aggregate. Income-tax authorities issued notices to some for...

M/S Enkay Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)407; 2002(1)RAJ407

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through is No. 3310/98 objections have been filed by the respondent against making the award dated 23rd March, 1997 Rule of the Court.2. Broad principles governing the acceptance, rejection, remittance of the award have been laid down by the Supreme Court in some of the following cases :-In Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs . R.J. Shah & Company : [1999]2SCR643 where the dispute before the Arbitrators clearly related to the interpretation of the terms of the contract it was held to be not a ground for getting aside the award or remitting the same. It was observed that when the Arbitrator is required to construe a contract then merely because another view may be possible the Court would not be justified in construing the contract in a different manner and then to set aside the award by observing that the arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction in making the award. To determine whether the arbitrator has acted in excess of jurisdiction or not the Supreme...

M/S. Sagar Video International Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)86; 91(2001)DLT419; 2001(59)DRJ53

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J Pleadings are complete.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, a licensee of a shop bearing No.6, Palika Parking Opposite Regal Cinema, New Delhi filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondent from disconnecting the supply to electric connection No.169204. Petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus with direction to the respondent to renew the lease in respect of the petitioner's shop for further period on the existing license fee within escalation of 15%.3. The controversy in the writ petition revolves around Clause-I of the license, which reads as under:'That the license shall be for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 17.8.1991 and thereafter it shall be the entire discretion of the licensor to extend or not to extend the period of license. In case ti is decided y the licensor that the license be renewed/extended it shall be renewed/extended for a further period of 5 years from the day follo...

Municipal Employees' Union Vs. Secretary (Labour), Govt. of N.C.T. of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)581; 90(2001)DLT574; [2001(89)FLR360]; (2001)ILLJ1650Del

ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. Costs paid.2. Before the Conciliation Officer the workman/Petitioner had suggested that the terms of Reference be drafted in the following manner:-'Whether the non-regularization of services of Shri Fateh Singh on the post of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.08.1995, denial of difference of salary for the post of Mali and the post of Garden Chaudhary for the period from 01.08.1995 to 13.06.1997 and his reversion to the post of Mali w.e.f. 14.06.1997 by the management is legal and justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. However, the terms of Reference actually forwarded by the Secretary (Labour) Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Delhi, for adjudication, are in the following words:'Whether Shri Fateh Singh Mali is entitled to wages of Garden Chaudhary for the period from 1.8.95 to 13.6.97 and if so what directions are necessary in this respect?'4. It is a ...

M/S S.L. Builders Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)464; 92(2001)DLT424; 2002(63)DRJ310; 2002(1)RAJ463

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor. J. 1. The objections preferred through is 12731/95 by the respondents challenging the award dated 21st March, 1995 of the Arbitrator are mainly twofold. The first objection is with regard to the findings of facts given by the Arbitrator which according to the respondent are against the evidence and material on the record as the Arbitrator has on the one hand ignored the documents of the respondent and on the other has relied upon those of the petitioner/claimant. The second objection is that the Arbitrator has gone beyond his jurisdiction by ignoring the relevant provisions of the agreement inasmuch as the statutory deductions on account of Income Tax, water and electricity have not been allowed by the Arbitrator. Further the Arbitrator has ignored the fact that the time was essence of the contract and inspire of the fact that the delay was on the part of the claimant the Arbitrator has awarded the enhanced compensation on account of the delay on the part of the respo...

Delhi Public School Through Its Principal and Another Vs. the Delhi St ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi36; 2001(60)DRJ361

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Order would dispose of IAs. 10985, 1693 and 2490 of 2000.2. I.A. 10985 of 2000 is filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this application plaintiff is seeking to add 'Delhi Public School Society' also as plaintiff no. 3. Application is formal. Learned counsel for the defendant does not oppose this application. Application is accordingly allowed. 'Delhi Public School Society' is added as plaintiff no. 3. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.3. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the plaintiff is seeking to restrain the defendants, their members, employees or any other class III or IV employees of the plaintiff school from demonstrating within 200 metres of the school boundary wall/gates of the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the School, for short) or interfering in the ingress or egress from the gates of the plaintiff-school or demonst...

Patel Field Marshal Industries and anr. Vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)992; 2001(58)DRJ501

Devinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed on 7th July, 1999 by learned Single Judge in I.A. 5805/97. By the said order learned Single Judge while allowing defendants/appellants application seeking leave to amend the written statement observed that defendants/appellants cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the admissions already made by their conduct and by their pleadings at this stage. Without stating in the impugned order that what part of the proposed amendments would amount to withdrawing the admissions already made the application was disposed of directing that before the amended written statement is brought on record an advance copy shall be given to learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent to avoid any controversy in this regard.2. We have been taken through the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend written statement. The application runs into about 40 pages. The application as per the submissions of learned counsel for the re...