Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Shri Mohammed Anis Vs. Shri Sameer Ahmed and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)29; 92(2001)DLT512; 2001(60)DRJ458

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Landlord has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the dismissal of his eviction petition by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on the grounds that he had failed to implead the Legal Representatives of deceased Respondent No.3/tenant. The Landlord has also not succeeded in his challenge to the order before the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT). The letter had favored the view that even though 'Leave to contest' had not been applied for by Respondent No.3 it did not automatically follow that eviction orders should be deemed to have been passed. The Tribunal had further held that the law enjoined upon the Petitioner to move an application under Order XXII Rules 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the Legal Representatives of the deceased party if the right to sue had survived. It held that since possession had to be taken from some person it was imperative that his Legal Representatives should have been imp leaded.2. The f...

Mohd. Islam Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4317; 93(2001)DLT764; 2001(59)DRJ426

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. A document as valuable as a dying declaration is supposed to be fool-proof, it must incorporate the particulars which it is supposed to contain. A dying declaration enjoys almost a sacrosanct status as a piece of evidence as it comes from the mouth of a person who is about to die and at that stage of life he is not likely to make a false statement.2. Keeping the above principle of law in view, we have to see whether on the basis of statement made by the deceased Mohd. Zafar Imam @ Pan Babu aged about 15 years vide Ex.PW-17/A, conviction and sentence of the appellant can be sustained. Whether the statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short the I.O.) vide Ex.PW-17/A enjoys the status of a dying declaration? Is it a foolproof evidence to prove that it was the appellant who burnt the deceased by pouring Kerosene oil on the deceased on 6th April, 1994?3. Challenge to the impugned order of conviction and sentence is primarily on the grounds...

M/S. L and T Niro Limited Vs. M/S. S.R.P. Industries Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT158; 2001(60)DRJ279

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor , J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an appointment of Arbitrator/Umpire for settlement of disputes and differences between the parties.2. The only objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the contract was to be performed in Varansi. Admittedly the respondent/s company has a subordinate office in Delhi. In view of the fact that the company has a subordinate office in Delhi, this Court has territorial jurisdiction office in Delhi, this Court has territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides as under :-Section 20 - Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises : Subject to in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntaril...

A.S. Sandhu Vs. Mithals International (P) Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT700

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. The Suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.7,84,000/- on the basis of judgment and decree dated 4th January, 1994 passed by the Superior Court of California, USA. The facts are mentioned in detail in the plaint as per which dispute arose between the parties which led the plaintiff to file the Suit in the aforesaid Court of California, USA and it resulted in the passing of judgment and decree dated 4th January, 1994. Copy of the decree sheet has been annexed with the plaint as per which a decree for US $20,000 as principle, and cost as per filed memorandum of cost is passed. As on the date of filing of the Suit converting US $ in rupees, a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- plus interest @ 15% per annum is claimed from the date of decree and this how the Suit for recovery of Rs.7,84,000/- has been filed. The defendant was duly served. However, the defendant have failed to put in appearance and was accordingly proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiff was directed to lead evidence by wa...

Naresh Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT614; 2001(59)DRJ250

ORDERNotice. Learned Counsel for the State accepts notice.Admit.1. Criminal Appeal No. 335/2001 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 124/98 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by judgment dated 27.4.2001 and by a separate order of the same date was pleased to impose a sentence of three months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction on merits. He, however, submits that in the facts of the present case, the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr.P.C. and/or the Probation of Offenders Act. He submits that the offence was committed on 3rd October, 1996 for violating notification, which prohibited storing of edible oil beyond a particular measure. However, this ...

M/S. R.S. Mehra Trading Company, Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC544

1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I allow the present application and take up the appeal itself for final disposal.2. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of the goods imported by the appellants, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, giving an option to them to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and imposed personal penalty of Rs.2 lakhs on the party under Section 112(a) of the Act. The importer filed appeal against the said order with the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for wavier of pre-deposit of the stay application by an order directing the party to deposit an amount of Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of hearing the appeal on merits. That direction was to complied with by the appellants, professedly, on account of financial hardships.The lower appellate authority, on finding that its direction for deposit had not been complied with, rejected the appellant's appeal as not maintainable on account ...

M/S. Jai Ambay Industries, Mandi Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC299

1. These appeals involve issues relating to Modvat credit. The very maintainability of the appeals is at issue in view of the reference to Larger Bench from the case of Kissan Sahakari Chini Mills. Until the question of maintainability is decided, the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit cannot be considered. however, in the interest of justice, the Departmental authorities should be restrained from recovery proceedings till final disposal of these applications. It is ordered accordingly. The stay applications are adjourned, for considering the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit to 14.08.2001. Issue certified copy of this order to the applicants....

M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd., Mohali Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is against rejection of a refund claim filed by M/s Northern Digital Exchange Ltd. ( in short, NDEL ) under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules. The refund claim was in relation to one EPABX NE-1200 System and three ATTs which were manufactured by NDEL and cleared on payment of duty under GP1 dated 31.03.1993 to the Railways at Allahabad on the instructions of M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. Delhi. It appears that M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. were to install the above systems at the Allahabad Premises of the Railways under a contract between the two and that M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. had placed purchase order with NDEL for the above goods, instructing specifically that the goods should be delivered at Railways' premises. M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. found the goods to be defective and returned the same to NDEL under Rule 173L ibid. The latter filed D-3 intimation with the Central Excise Range Office on 03.09.1993. They subsequently cleared the goods after repairs/reconditioning e...

M/S. Siemens Telecom Ltd. and Vs. Cce, Chandigarh-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC625

1. These three appeals arise out of Order-in-Original No.80(sic) dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. By this order M/s. Bharti Telcom Ltd. (BTL) were directed to pay duty of Rs.2,54,15,935 and a like sum as penalty. M/s. Siemans Telecom Ltd. (STL) has been saddled with a penalty of Rs.50,00,000. Shri Rakesh Bharti Mittal, Managing Director of M/s. Bharti Telecom Ltd. was directed to pay penalty of Rs.1,25,00,000. In these appeals demand of duty and imposition of penalty are under challenge.2. Along with the appeals, applications have been moved for stay of operation of the order impugned as also to waive pre-deposit as condition precedent for entertaining the appeals. We heard Learned Counsel representing the appellants and the Learned Departmental Representative.3. In the course we are going to adopt, we do not think it necessary to narrate the various contentions raised by the parties in these proceedings. Suffice it to say, that M/s. BTL sells...

M/S. A. Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT389TriDel

1. Appeal E/2009/2000-D is at the instance of the assessee.. Order under challenge in that appeal is Order-in-Original No.9/CE/JPD/2000 dated 9.3.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. As per that order he confirmed a demand of Rs.16,15,885 under section 11A of the Central Excise Act and also imposed a penalty of Rs.5,00,000 invoking the provisions contained in Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Show cause notice was issued demanding central excise duty of Rs.20,19,856. As against this amount, Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs.16,15,885 only. Challenging the action of the Commissioner in confirming demand for lesser amount, the Revenue has come up by filing appeal E/373/2001-D. Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty to a lesser amount following the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Srichakra Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1999 (108) ELT 361. Decision of this Tribunal in Sricharkra Tyres Ltd. was rendered by a Larger Benc...