Delhi Court March 2001 Judgments

S/Sh. Arvind Tomar and Rajveer Singh Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. one lakh each imposed under Section 112 (b) of the Act.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants, submits that the applicants are co-owner of the truck from which the goods of foreign origin were recovered. She submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the applicants were having any connection with the goods of foreign origin. She submits that in their statements under Sec. 108 of the Act, the applicants denied their concern with the goods in question recovered from the truck. No investigation was conducted from the driver of the truck in respect of the seized goods. She, therefore, prays that the applications be allowed.3. Heard Id. D.R., who reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.5. In this case, the applicants were co-owner of the truck from which the goods of foreign origin were recovered. None claimed the goods. The applicants denied any connection with seized g...

Apollo Tyres Limited Vs. M/S. Surindra Tyres

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ161

ORDERK.S.Gupta. J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of I.As. 1366/98, 1367/98, 1368/98 and 1369/98.2. Suit under Order xxxvII CPC was filed by Apollo Tyres Ltd alleging that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Kapil Kumar, Assistant Manager (Legal) is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute suit on its behalf under a General Power of Attorney executed on 26th February 1991 pursuant to resolution of Board of Directors of company dated 19th February 1991. The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes and flaps. Defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm and is engaged in the sale and purchase of automotive tyres, tubes and flaps. Defendants 2 and 3 always represented themselves to be the partners of defendant No. 1 firm. It is further alleged that for the supplies made by plaintiff to defendants from April 18, 1994 to 12th August 1994 the plaintiff raised invoices against which the defendant No. 1 firm issued ch...

Shri Krishna Gopal Heda Vs. M/S. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT1

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. In a nutsehll, the grievance of the Petitioner is that he was wrongly and illegally superannuated by the Bharat Commerce and Industries Limited (Respondent No.1) on his having attained the age of 58 years. The Respondent No.1 has relied on its own Retirement Scheme, which, in their contention, fully authorises and justifies the Superannuating. 2. The Industrial Tribunal has by its impugned Award dated 31.5.1997 found against the Petitioner in the Reference which reads as follows: 'Whether the termination of services by way of retirement of Shri Krishna Gopal Heda is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief, is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. Mr. D.K. Aggarwal, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Workman has submitted firstly, that the wages of Workman were arbitrarily sealed at Rs.2500/- per month so as to keep him within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and with this mala fide inte...

Sheikh Dost Mohammad and ors. Vs. Sheikh Ghos Mohammad and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)523; 92(2001)DLT420; 2001(59)DRJ702

ORDERJ.D.Kapoor.J.1. Through this application the appointment of receiver has been sought as the plaintiffs apprehend that the entire assets would be frittered away and he would be only saddled with the liabilities and not with the profits being earned by the defendants by way of production.2. The facts relevant for the decision of the application are as under:Plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendants 1 and 2 became partners for carrying out leather business and constituted a firm under the name and style of B. Shahabuddin & Co. The partnership deed provided that the partnership shall come to an end by 31st of March 1999. In the name of the partnership firm a number of assets including the factory, office premises etc. were purchased and vested. The differences started when the plaintiffs received a letter dated 8th November 1998 addressed by defendant No.1 enclosing a copy of trial balance for the period from 1st April to 31st September 1998. The plaintiffs were called upon to pay an amount of...

M/S Rawla Construction Co. Vs. Military Engineers Services

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)728; 91(2001)DLT698; 2002(64)DRJ212; 2002(1)RAJ437

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this suit, the award dated 16th October, 1996 is sought to be made rule of the Court. Respondent has challenged its validity by way of filing objections. Relevant facts lie in narrow compass.2. The respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner for construction of storage accommodation at Chandipur, a District of Orissa. The contract was made on 20th September, 1985 for Rs. 37,78,909.91. As per terms of the contract the work was to be completed within ten months but the petitioner sought extension from time to time and completed the work on 31st August, 1989. However the petitioner did not prepare the final bill within the prescribed period of three months and as such the respondent prepared the same which was signed by the petitioner on 5th march, 1990 i.e. after a lapse of six months from the time of completion of the work. After assigning the final bill the petitioner sent a letter dated 1st June, 1990 to the respondent claiming the amount to...

Vikas Engineering Co. Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1026; 2002(1)RAJ585

ORDERA.K. Sikri. J.1. An Agreement No. 59/HD XI/A/82-83 was entered into between the parties as per which the petitioner was awarded work relating to the construction of 20 cat III (duplex type) 40 cat II flats under SFS at Kalkaji, New Delhi, Opp. Hr. Sec. School. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties in relation to execution of the aforesaid work, Mr. S. Nagarajan was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide the said disputes and make his award. The learned Arbitrator adjudicated upon the disputes referred to him and mad and published his award dated 20th June, 1995. It is a speaking awarded running into twenty three pages. The said award along with the proceedings was filed in this court. When the DDA was served with the notice of filling of the award, it filed this is which contains objections to the award. Reply to the objections are filed and following issues were framed on 9th January, 1998:1. Whether the award dated June 28, 1995 is liable to be set aside in resp...

Dr. Mrs. Kiran Srivastava and Others Vs. the University Grants Commiss ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ525

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. Since the facts and issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and common, I propose to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioners herein were engaged as Research Associates in terms of the a Scheme introduced by the University Grants Commission somewhere in the year 1983. In terms of the aforesaid scheme, the engagement of the petitioners as Research Associate was initially for a period of three years which was extendable for another term, for a period, not exceeding two years. The petitioners as Research Associates are seeking for a direction in these writ petitions to the respondent to continue all the petitioners in service till they are regularly absorbed in a suitable post on permanent basis. It is also prayed in the writ petitions that the decision of the University Grants Commission to scrap the existing Scheme for Research Associates and Research Scientists be set aside and quashed.3. In...

Cgt Vs. Hans Raj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN129(Delhi)

Heard.2. At the instance of revenue, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in adopting the value of the gifted property by rent capitalisation method as against the Valuation Officer under section 15(6) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 ?'3. The dispute relates to the conclusion of the Tribunal about the proper method to be applied for valuation of the gifted property. The Tribunal held that taking into account the peculiar circumstances that the property was tenanted and the tenant was occupying house since long and was continuing even after the gift, indicated that rent capitalisation method was the proper method. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the position would be different after 1989, but when the proceedings related to an earlier period, the me...

Prabhati Lal Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 5.12.2000, passed by District Forum No. VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 355/2000 - entitled Shri Prabhati Lal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had applied for a telephone connection vide application dated 4.10.1996 by depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under non-OYT general category and an O.B. number, against the abovesaid registration, was issued to him by the respondent on 11.3.1997. It was stated that telephone, bearing No. 5022510, was installed at the residence of the appellant on 26.12.1998. It was further stated that the telephone in question fell in the ar...

M/S. Sab Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC562

1. In these three appeals, arising out of a Common Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the issue involved is whether M/s. SAB Electronics Ltd. have imported complete EPABX and Telephone system in CKD/SKD condition under 37 Bills of Entry or Parts and components of EPABX.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Kyushu Matsushita Electric Co., Japan (KME) for receiving certain technical assistance and technical information and know how for manufacturing EPABX Proprietary Telephone for EPABX; that investigation was carried out on the basis of an information to the effect that they had imported 21,06,10 components in CKD/SKD condition from M/s. B.N. Nagano & Co., Tokyo which required Special Import Licence and attracted rate of duty applicable to complete items. The Commissioner of Customs, under the impugned Order confirmed the demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 95,91,819/-, imposed penalty of Rs.5 lakhs on the Appellant Co...