Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Dr. S.S. Rikhy and ors. Vs. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)772; 91(2001)DLT659; 2001(59)DRJ13; 2001RLR471

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaintiff have filed this suit for possession, recover of arrears of rent, damages of mesne profits. Apart from filing its Written Statement the Defendant has also filed I.A. 1259/99 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.') for the dismissal of the suit. The Plaintiffs have filed I.A. 12562/99 under Order XII Rule 6 of the C.P.C. praying for the passing of orders for possession of the demised property.2. The relief of possession is in respect of two properties, covered by two separated registered Lease Deeds, both dated 18.12.1979. These properties are, covered by a Perpetual Lease dated 26.11.1975 executed by the Delhi Development Authority with Dr. S.S. Rikhy (plaintiff No. 1) and late (Mrs.) S. M. Rikhy (through her legal representatives). From the order in which they have been filed in these proceedings, the first Lease (Lease 'A') is between late (Mrs.) S. M. Rikhy and the D...

Shri Krishan Kumar Surekha and Another Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT156; 2001(59)DRJ208

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Order dated 3.7.2000 passed in suit No.906/96 by learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal by the defendant.2. Initially the respondent bank filed the aforementioned suit No.906/94 in this Court claiming a decree for specific performance of the agreement and for recovery of damages and also for recovery of an amount of Rs.36,20,722.92 from the petitioner. On coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1973 (for short 'the Act') the suit stood transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal where it was registered as Q.A.N. 913/95.3. It appears that the appellants moved an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for transfer of the case to this Court. The application was rejected on 2.7.1996 with the observation that such an objection, if any, be raised in the written statement. Consequently, the appellants raised the objection in their reply that because of the averments made in the plaint by the Bank and...

Union of India Vs. M/S. Nagina Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)545; 92(2001)DLT305; 2002(1)RAJ453

ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. By means of the is the plaintiff has filed objections to the award dated 7th October, 1996 made and published by Shri R.N. Poddar, Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Department of Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in this case. The petitioner had awarded the contract to the respondent for supply of 62,500 k.gs. of soap woolen powder and/or flakes. The respondent was required to furnish security deposit of Rs.34,375/- by 7th May, 1986. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent did not furnish the security. Time for furnishing the security was extended up to 31st October, 1986 vide letter dated 25th September, 1986. Respondent still failed to furnish the security and accordingly the contract was terminated. The petitioner's further case is that the petitioner made the purchases from the market at the rust and cost of the r...

Union of India and ors. Vs. Major S.S. Suhag

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)894; 92(2001)DLT159

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 14th October, 1999 of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondent herein for re-employment.2. The short point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondent herein was entitled to re-employment in the army after taking premature voluntary retirement. The respondent being a low medical category officer had applied for this premature retirement on medical grounds and on account of some domestic problems vide his request dated 8th May, 1986. The relevant portion of the request letter is reproduced as under:'Apex `A' to Army HQ letter No.3887/MS 7C dt. 25 Apr.81 APPLICATION FOR PREMATURE RETIREMENT/RESIGNATIONSECTION 1(Particulars of the Officer)XXXXXSECTION-II(Request of the Officer)1. I am a low medical category officer w.e.f. 17th February, 1986 for 24 weeks and am going to be made permanent low medical category because of ...

Ram Preet @ Mithlesh and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2434; 91(2001)DLT559; 2001(59)DRJ326

Usha Mehra, J.1. Ram Preet and Nirmal @ Suresh @ Toni have assailed the order of their conviction and sentence dated 30.7.96 and 31.7.96 respectively, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of fine further six months rigorous imprisonment.2. The conviction has been assailed by Ram Preet inter alia, on the grounds that he had no common intention with co-accused Nirmal, thereforee, could not have been convicted by invoking Section 34, IPC. That no separate charge under Section 302 having been framed, he could not have been convicted under Section 302 by invoking the aid of Section 34, IPC. Aid of Section 34, IPC could not be taken because prosecution has not produced any evidence to show prior meeting of mind or pre-planning to kill the accused. Finally the role assigned to him was of catching hold of the deceased and exho...

Naveen JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(79)ECC425; 2001(134)ELT32(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This is an application for reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'the Act')- Following are the questions proposed, describing them as questions of law :'1. Whether the Customs Authorities have the jurisdiction to arraign the applicant on the charge of inflating the value of the goods, admittedly exempted from Customs duty, considering the express provisions of Rule 1(3) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 ?2. Whether the Customs Tribunal has misinterpreted and misconstrued Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, which must qualify the condition imposed by Rule 1(3) cited above, before it is applied ?3. Whether Section 111(m) has no application de hors Rule 1(3) of the Rules cited above ?4. Whether the legislative intention to keep the goods not dutiable under the Customs Act out of the purview of the Customs Act is demonstrably clear from the fact that Section 111 of the Customs Act providing f...

South Eastern Carriers Ltd. Vs. B. Rajendra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The above noted cross appeals, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arise out of an order dated 22.6.1998, passed by the District Forum-I in Complaint Case No. 953/1994 entitled Shri B. Rajendra v. M/s. South Eastern Carriers Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that Shri B. Rajendra (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had filed a complaint before the District Forum, averring therein that the respondent had entrusted his household articles (old and used), to M/s. South Eastem Carriers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), in 19 packages on 7.5.1994 vide Goods Receipt No. 3403050 for being transported from Mysore to Noida (U.P.). The respondent had also paid a sum of Rs. 13,025/- to the appellant as freight charges for a full truck load. Since the goods of the respondent did not reach the destination he made enquiries from the appellant,...

H.R. Kaushik Vs. Ajay Cement Store

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 19.8.2000, passed by District Forum No. III in Complaint Case No. 558/2000-entitled Shri H.R. Kaushik v. Shri Sanjay Gupta, Prop. M/s. Ajay Cement Store. 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 purchased 100 bags of Sri Ram Cement - grade-43 in two instalments, each of 50 bags @ Rs. 140/- and Rs. 145/- per bag respectively from the respondent on 3.6.1997 and 24.6.1997 for the purpose of being utilised in the construction of his house at D-318/56, Mahavir Enclave-III, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant, thereafter, purchased another lot of 30 bags of Birla Chetak Cement - grade-43 @ Rs. 133/- per bag on 30.4.1998 ...

C.C.E., New Delhi Vs. M/S. Deioners Speciality

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT307TriDel

1. Revenue filed this application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court for their valuable opinion: "(i) Whether the option either to pay duty and avail Modvat credit or avail exemption as as SSI Unit is vested in the Unit; (ii) Whether provisions of Rule 57C are attracted in case where final produces are cleared without availing of exemption from whole of the duty of excise." Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Deioners Speciality Chemicals (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. They filed a classification list w.e.f. 1.4.93 for payment of duty on the clearance of their final product after availing the credit of duty suffered on their inputs under the provisions of Rule 57A. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the ground that since they are entitled to exemption upto Rs. 30 lakh, they are not having any option to pay duty and avail the modvat facility in view of the provisions of Rule 57 C of Central Excise Rules...

M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cce Kolkata

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reason s recorded below we waived the pre-deposit of duty of Rs.68,15,29,320/- and penalty of equal amount and proceeded to hear and decide the appeal it self with the consent of both the sides as the issue in dispute has already been resolved by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case i.e. Final Order No. 878-898/2000-A dated 6.11.2000(reported in 2000(122) ELT 615).2. Both sides submit that the issue in dispute is whether the ships demurrage chargers which were actually incurred by Indian Oil Company were includible in the assessable value of petroleum crude oil and petroleum product like Motor Spirit, High Speed Diesel, Superior Kerosene Oil etc.3. The above issue has been decided by the Larger Bench holding that demurrage charges cannot form part of the value of the goods and cannot be included in the assessable value of the good sand the Larger Bench has set aside duty liability and the penalty.4. Following the ratio of the above decisio...