Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Jindal Polyester (A. Divn. of Vs. C.C.E., Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter is called, there is one for the appellants. The appellants were issued a notice on 21.3.2001 for the hearing on this date. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting for adjournment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting their appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed for non-prosecution....

Cce Meerut Vs. M/S. Mohit Papers Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed b the Revenue against the impugned order dated 28.5.97 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be 'capital goods', to the respondents.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods fall within the ambit of 'Capital goods' or not, deserves to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the latest Larger Bench decision in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001(42) RLT 817(LB). We have also gone through the impugned order and the record and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the larger Bench in the above cited case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) when he passed the impugned order. The question, whether the disputed goods satisfy the definition of 'capital goods' required to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light 7 above said dec...

Shri Vinod Kumar Bhatia Vs. C.C.E., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The brief facts in this case are that M/s. Brite Enterprises, New Delhi filed 5 shipping bills for export of 51 packages of Cotton P/L Denim pants totally valued at Rs.18.49 lakhs claiming draw-back of Rs.3.05 lakhs (in all the shipping bills). The goods were subject to 100% examination and were found to contain Denim pants and Cotton Knitted T-shirts of very inferior quality. The shipping bills were signed by the appellant - Shri V.K. Bhatia. The proceedings wee initiated which culminated in Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo), New Delhi passing an Order dt. 30.11.2000, in which he ordered for confiscation of the goods valued at Rs.3,57,200/- but an option was given to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The Commissioner in his Order further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri D.S. Bhatia, owner of M/s. Brite Enterprises, New Delhi and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri V.K. Bhatia who had signed the shipping bills.2. The present Stay Petition and appeal are filed by the afor...

Smt. Kamlesh Arora Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)620; 92(2001)DLT246; 2001(60)DRJ277

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 17.11.1999 and 25.11.1999, by which the mutation of property No.97/109, Nehru Place, New Delhi, was modified to be in the joint names of the petitioner and one Ms.Ruby Arora. The property earlier stood mutated in the name of petitioner alone.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition had urged that there was non-compliance with the statutory provision of Section 126 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which reads as under:126. Amendment of assessment list (1) The Commissioner may, at any time, amend the assessment list:-(a) by inserting therein the name of any person whose name ought to be inserted; or(b) by inserting therein any land or building previously omitted; or(c) by striking out the name of any person not liable for the payment of property taxes; or(...

Subhash Madan Vs. Ramesh Madan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)380; 92(2001)DLT413

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.(Oral)1. The present appeal arises from an order dated 15th February, 2001 of learned Single Judge whereby Suit No. 601/2000 filed by the appellant seeking decree for specific performance and in the alternative for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been dismissed on the short ground that the appellant had suppressed material fact of filing prior suit for permanent inspection against the respondent in which no injunction was granted by the Civil Judge, Delhi, and the suit was dismissed in default. The learned single Judge in the impugned order has recorded that in the replication the appellant has admitted the factum of filing of a suit for permanent injunction.2. In the suit filed by the appellant out of which the present appeal arises, decree for specific performance in respect of an oral agreement dated 9.5.97 alleged to have been entered between the appellant and the respondent with regard to one half portio...

M/S. Garg Associates Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)986; 92(2001)DLT298; 2001(59)DRJ506; 2002(1)RAJ450

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral) 1. Originally the petition was filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1940 for directing the respondent to file the agreement and refer the disputes/claims of the petitioner to arbitration. However, pursuant to the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the petition, in view of the provisions of the Arbitration clause and the common judgment of the Supreme court in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Rani constructions (P) Ltd. Steel Authority of India Limited reported in 1999 (9) SCC 333, the petition was amended as to having been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Facts in brief are that pursuant to invocation or arbitration by the petitioner on 18th of April, 1994, the Arbitrator was appointed after three years and only part of the claims were referred to him. The Arbitrator resigned on 8th of December 1997 by taking the plea that the work un...

Canara Bank Vs. M/S. Prestel Communication (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)798

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff Bank has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 5,36,969.34 paisa. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff Bank is a Banking Company duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its head office at bangalore and branch office, amongst others, at 269, Fruit & Vegetable Market, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020. Shri J.G. Bhat being a Divisional Manager is one of the Principal Officers of the plaintiff Bank, is fully conversant with the facts of the case and is competent to sign and verify plaint and file the present suit. He also holds powers of attorney in his favor duly executed by the plaintiff Bank in his favor and as such is authorised, competent and empowered to file the suit for and on behalf of the plaintiff Bank, to sign and verify the pleadings, affidavits, engage Advocates and to do all what is just, necessary and in the interest of the plaintiff Bank in connection with th...

M/S U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi and Othe ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)929

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an appeal, filed under section 173 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, against the Award/order dated 15.11.2000, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident claims Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal'), shahdara, Delhi, inter-alia awarding a sum of Rs.6,58,080/- towards the loss of dependency. The respondents are the widow and children of the deceased satpal singh, who died on 7.5.96. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the deceased was made to alight at a Red Light by the conductor due to a dispute about bus tickets. The deceased was 47 years old at the time of his death and earning Rs.9,000/- as Junior Works Manager in ordnance Factory, Itarasi. The widow and the children, who were all students at the time of Satpal Singh's death were financially dependant upon the deceased. The widow/respondent No.1, Smt. Bimla Devi deposed before the Tribunal that she was with her husband at the time of the ...

M/S. Delhi Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. U.P. Electricity Board a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ280

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act moved by the petitioner seeking declaration that respondent No.2 has no authority or jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator firstly because there exists no arbitration agreement between the parties and secondly there was no concluded contract and thirdly that the rights and claims in respect of the obligations of the parties are assignable under the law.2. The facts giving rise to the above petition are in short as under:That Victor Cable Corporation (hereinafter referred as Victor Cables), a partnership firm of four partners was carrying on its business of manufacture and sale of cables of various sizes at 802, Joshi Road, New Delhi and was a firm of repute with a well equipped factory at Sahibabad, Uttar Pradesh. The disputes arose between the partners after the death of one of the partners of the said firm. One of the partners filed a suit against the other partners being Suit No.95/80 for dissolution o...

Chairman and Managing Director Ntpc and anr. Vs. M/S Raj Kishan and Co ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)242

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 8th August ,2000 of the learned Singh Judge whereby the petition filed by the appellants herein under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)for revocation of authority of Appellant No.2 to act as the arbitrator and for appointment of another person in his place was allowed and Justice J.B Goel,a retired judge of this Court, was appointed as the Arbitrator.2. Notice was issued in this appeal to the respondent who raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal on the strength of two decisions of this Court reported as Union of India and another vs.A.S. Dhupia and another : AIR1972Delhi108 (Full Bench) and G.C. . Sharma vs. The appeal was adjourned to hear arguments on the question of maintainability of the appeal as to whether the order impugned against is an order appealable under Section 39 of the Act.3. We have heard learned counsel ...