Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Banke Singh and Raj Kumar Sodhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)935; 92(2001)DLT362

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J (Oral)Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petitions are taken up for disposal.By this composite Order I would be disposing of writ petitions bearing CW Nos. 4424/2000, 924/2001 and 6591/2000, as common question of fact and law are involved.2. Petitioners in these cases were the applicants for allotment of MIG flats under the new Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 of the DDA. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners had duly paid the initial deposit as required under the scheme and were issued registration certificates. Thereafter the petitioners were also issued demand-cum-allotment letters intimating that MIG flats at the specified colony had been allotted. The petitioners beneficebelieved that with the receipt of the allotment letter their quest for shelter and housing was over. Petitioners later on discovered to their chargin that it was a case of double and wrong allotment in CW Nos 4424/2000 and 6591/2000. While in CW No. 924/2001, it was case of...

Sushil Sharma Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)785; 2002CriLJ418; 92(2001)DLT238; 2001(59)DRJ132; 2001(2)JCC69

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner who is facing trial for an offence under section 302/201/212/34 IPC in case FIR No.486/95, presently pending in the Court of Shri V.K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, has come to this Court under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to transfer the case to the Court of Shri G.P.Thareja, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi (presently posted as Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi).2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state.3. The petitioner's prayer for the transfer of the case to the Court of Shri G.P. Thareja is mainly on the ground that the case against him is complicated involving enormous evidence most of which has already been recorded by Shri G.P. Thareja in his own hand writing. It is submitted that Shri G.P. Thareja has been liberally putting Court questions to the witnesses, exercising discretion under Section 311 Cr. P.C. and making di...

Smt. Vipla Kapoor Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1058; 92(2001)DLT441; 2001(59)DRJ7

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J (Oral) Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to hand over possession of flat on ground floor in Block-B, Pocket-4, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner also claimed interest @ 18% p.m. for the delayed period of handing over of possession. Writ petition had come up for admission on 11.10.1991, when notice to show cause was issued and orders were passed reserving one ground floor flat for the petitioner. Rule was issued on 11.11.1993, interim order was confirmed. Operation of Demand letter dated 26.8.92/5.10.92 was stayed till 15.3.1994. Liberty was also given to the petitioner to obtain possession, if he was able to arrange the funds. On 28.10.94, the petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the entire demanded amount subject to the condition that if the petitioner succeeds the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner ...

R. Gopinath Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 92(2001)DLT530

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, the question that was argued before me and that arises for my consideration at the present stage is, whether the respondent No. 1 is a 'State' or 'other authorities' as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whether the present writ petition is maintainable against the said respondent.2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in this Court seeking for relief in the nature of quashing the constitution of the Selection Committee for making recommendations for appointment to the post of Director General, Consultancy Development Ccentre .3. An advertisement was released and published for filling up the post of Director General, Consultancy Development Ccentre by the respondent No. 2, the Chairman of the Consultancy Development Ccentre . The petitioner applied for his consideration as against the said post. A Selection Committee was constituted for making selection...

M/S. Bharat Enterprises, New Vs. C.C.E., Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT384TriDel

1. The appellants during the period from 1.10.94 to 31.3.95 made semi-finished moulds and dies on job work basis for the principle manufacturers - M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon. During this period, they had cleared semi-finished moulds and dies valued at Rs.5,08,838/- to M/s. Lumax Industries Ltd., Gurgaon under the challans prescribed under Rule 57F(3). The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I initiated proceedings against them and vide his Order dt.20.10.98 he held that during the impugned period, they were engaged in the manufacture of dies falling under Chapter heading 8207. The Dy.Commissioner in his order further observed that what was being cleared by the party was semi-finished dies having the essential character of finished dies and as such by applying Rule 2 (a) of the Interpretation Rules of Excise Tariff, the same were classifiable under Heading 8207.It is further observed by the Adjudicating Authority in his order that the provisions of Rule 57F(2) do not com...

M/S. Indian Textile Dyers Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called.. None appeared for the appellants, M/s.Indian Textile Dyers. In the telegram, the appellants have submitted that the matter related to the inclusion of galleries while calculating the annual production in terms of Hot Air Stenter (s) Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 and that this matter has been decided by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors - 2001 (42) RLT 429 (Tribunal).2. Shri A.K. Jain, SDR submits that no other issue is involved in this appeal and that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision referred to above in favour of the appellants.4. In view of the matter already settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly....

M/S. ChemvIn Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.51,600/- and penalty of Rs.52,000/-.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pipes of various sizes. He submits that while calculating the stock of pipes, there was some calculation mistake due to which the shortage occures. He also submits that there are certain pipes which were replaced in place of defective pipes and the defective pipes recycles without correcting in the RG-I Register.4. In this case the duty is being demanded on the goods found short at the time of verification of stock. The case of the appellant is arguable. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. The appellants is directed deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- within a period of six weeks for hearing of the appeal. On deposit of Rs.20,000/-, the deposit of duty and penalty i...

M/S. Mianji Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT207TriDel

1. When the case the was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.2.2001 directed the appellants to deposit the duty and penalty for hearing of the appeal.Appellants had not produced any evidence to show that they had complied with the Stay order. Hence the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance for the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act....

M/S. M.R. Compound and Allied Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. None appeared for the appellants, M/s. M.R.Compound & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd. and Others. A request has been filed in the court for adjournment on the ground that the counsel, Shri A.P. Mathur was not feeling well.2. We find that earlier on 19.2.2001, adjournment was sought on similar grounds.3. We find that when the stay application had come-up before the Tribunal on 21.12.98, the following orders were passed:- "Heard both sides. The manufacturing company to deposit Rs.15 lakhs towards duty and Rs.5 lakhs towards penalty. Shiv Kumar Gupta to deposit Rs.1 lakh and Shri Davesn Ranjan to deposit Rs.5,000/- towards penalty. These deposits are to be made within 8 weeks from today i.e.21.12.1998. Compliance to be reported on 2.3.1999." 4. The operative part of the order was announced in the open court, and in the order recorded, it is seen that in place of Rs.15 lakhs, the applicant's firm was directed to deposit Rs.5 lakhs towards the duty.This error in the...

M/S. Swatantra Bharat Mills Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1313TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.19,46,222/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.20 lakhs.Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton years.During the course of scrutiny of the records for the period 1964-95 when the rates of duty were changed from the specific to ad valorem w.e.f.1.3.94 on cotton it was found that the appellants had not paid central excise duty for the period 20.5.94 to 11.8.94 on single yarn consumed captively for the manufacture of doubled/multifolded yarn. It was alleged that the duty was required to be paid on single yarn and, therefore the appellants who were paying duty on doubled/multifolded yarn had not correctly paid duty. A SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed on them.The appellants submitted...