Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

A. Michael Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sharma, ChairpersonBoth these appeals have arisen from the same order and as such are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri M. Jeevaratnam, the authorised representative of the appellants submitted that the appellants have deposited the amount of penalty and as such they are not seeking dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty and prayed that these appeals can be heard and disposed of on merits. 3. It is noted that Appeal No. 574/2000 has been filed on 29-8-2000. The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 comes into force with effect from 1-6-2000 and appeals filed thereunder are required to be accompanied by fee of Rs. 10,000. Shri Jeevaratnam was, therefore, asked to make good the deficiency in the amount of appeal fee by paying the balance amount before these appeals can be taken up for consideration on merits. Shri Jeevaratnam submitted that he would deposit the requisite amount of fee forthwith. He further submitted that the copy of the adjudication order was received belat...

Raj Kishan Dass Vs. Mrs. Kusum Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT359; 2001(60)DRJ803

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J 1. The short controversy to be settled at this stage is the determination of issue No.2 which has been framed as a preliminary issue and is as under :-'Whether a trust as alleged could be a valid trust in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act?2. Facts germane for the issue in question need to be capitulated in brief.3. The defendant was married to late Mr. O.P. Sanghi on 9.3.1969 and has been residing Along with her family members at 4, Ring Road, Kilokari, New Delhi since then. The plaintiff has been living with Mr. Jai Kishan Das at 3, Pusa Road, New Delhi. In the year 1981-82 late Mr. O.P. Sanghi, the husband of the defendant mentioned to Shri Jai Kishan Das that an opportunity is available to invest in a residential plot of land at Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. Shri Jai Kishan Das then expressed his desire that the plot of land be acquired partly for the benefit of his son, the plaintiff herein and partly for the benefit of the children of the...

Prakash Industries Limited Vs. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT159; 2001(59)DRJ540

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The appellant seeks protection under Sick Industrial Companies (special Provision) Act, 1985 (referred to as SICA) not only for the purposes of not paying the laser rentals but also as remedy not to handover the wind-mills being the subject matter of the lease agreement and to continue to run the same without giving any compensation to the respondent who is the Lesser of the said wind-mills.2. The respondent has filed the suit for recovery of unpaid lease rentals as also for return of the wind-mills which were subject matter of the lease agreement specifically in view of termination of the lease agreement as a consequence of the respondents not having paid the amounts in terms of the lease agreements. The parties to the present appeal had entered into a lease agreement dated 28th March, 1995 in respect of the wind-mills to be installed at Mupandal, Kanyakumar in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said wind-mills were delivered and installed and were used by the...

Y. Sharma Vs. M/S. Surya Fincap Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ807; 93(2001)DLT693; 2001(60)DRJ292

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint bearing No. 396/97 - M/s. Surya Fincap Ltd vs. Ganga Automobiles Ltd and other and proceedings taken there under pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. Complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') was filed by M/s. Surya Fincap Ltd against the petitioner and 5 others, interalia, alleging that towards the discharge of debt/loan the accused-persons issued cheque Nos. 087140 for Rs. 15 lakhs and 087142 for Rs. 23,100/-, both dated 17th November 1996 drawn on Corporation Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, New Delhi. On presentation both these cheques were dishonoured on the ground - 'Exceeded Arrangement'. Thereafter demand for payment of the amount covered by cheque No. 087140 was made through the notice dated 7th January 1997 while covered by cheque No. 087142 through notice dated 8th January 1997. However, ...

M/S Goa Telecommunications and Systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT713; 2001(60)DRJ308

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 for interlocutory injunction by way of restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, officers, representatives from and in any manner encashing or attempting to encash or acting further to demands dated 18.1.2000 issued fro encashment of bank guarantees issued by Syndicate Bank, Panaji, Goa, defendant No. 4 and also for restraining defendant No. 4 from acting on the demand of defendants 1-3 and from disbursing or paying any money to the said defendants.2. The facts relevant for the aforesaid application are in brief as under:The plaintiff was one of the successful bidders to a tender floated by the defendant No. 1 and 2 for supply of optical fibre line terminating equipment in the year 1995 and the defendants placed an Advance Purchase Order (APO) on the plaintiff for supply of two items as referred in para 3 of the plaint for a total contract value of Rs. 9,17,56,000/-.3. In terms of Clause 1 of the said A...

Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs. Appellate Authority and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT212; 2001(60)DRJ352

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th of August, 1998 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the order passed by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (for short 'the DPCC) dated 1.5.98, refusing consent to operate under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was set aside and the DPCC directed to decide the application afresh after undertaking an inspection of the premises of respondent No. 2.2. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, DPCC has based his challenge mainly on the ground that the impugned order has lost sight of te fact that in accordance with the Master Plan, only light & service industries activity can be carried on. The relevant provisions of te Delhi Master Plan, 1990 relied upon by him read as under:'HEAVY AND LARGE INDUSTRIESRefer Annexure III H(b) (a) No new heavy and large industrial units shall be permitted in Delhi.(b) The existing heavy and large scale industrial units shal...

Shri Pradeep Gupta Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT834

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The order passed on 21.9.2000 by learned Single Judge is under challenge by which learned Single Judge decided issue No.5 holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently directed the plaint to be returned for being presented in an appropriate Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.2. Facts in brief are that on 10.4.1994 the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking decree for declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against the defendant/respondent. The prayer clause reads :-'It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court would be pleased to pass : (i) declaring that the claim of the defendant on the basis of guarantee dated 7.3.75 has become barred by time and hence no amount is recoverable from the plaintiff on the basis thereof L (ii) of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, servants, employees, representatives, assigns, administrators, etc. be passed restraining t...

Global Trust Bank Ltd. Vs. Fargo Freight Ltd., Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi13; 94(2001)DLT623

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. These two appeals are being decided by a common judgment since parties are the same and common arguments were addressed.2. In FAO (OS) No.265/2000 the appellant has prayed for setting the orders passed on 16.3.2000 and 21.7.2000 by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 1746/96. In FAO (OS) No. 268/2000, the prayer made is to set aside the order passed on 21.7.2000 by learned Single Judge in OMP No. 263/98.3. Appellant in both the appeals is Global Trust Bank Ltd. Fargo Freight Ltd. Ireland is respondent No.1 in FAO (OS) No. 265/2000 and respondent No.3 in FAO (OS) No. 268/2000; Commodities Exchange Corporation Ltd. is respondent No.2 in both the appeals and Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. is respondent No.3 in FAO (OS) No. 265.2000 and respondent No.3 in FAO (OS) No. 268/2000. Reference is being in this judgment to the parties as are arrayed in FAO (OS) No. 265/2000.4. Respondent No.1 a company incorporated in Ireland is engaged in the business of shipping. Respondent No.2,...

Shri Raj Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT192; 2002(61)DRJ433

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Out of these 61 appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), 54 appeals are by the Claimants seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the remaining 7 appeals are by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation.2. By notification issued Section 4 of the Act on 24.10.1061 by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi about 16000 acres of land in 24 blocks stretching over a number of village in the then Union Territory of Delhi was notified for being acquired by the Government at public expense for public purpose, namely, Planned Development of Delhi. Out of this land notified under Section 4 of the Act, from time to time declarations were issued under Section 6 of the Act for separate portions of land to be taken over for various schemes connected with development of Delhi.Considerable land of village Rithala was also included in the notification issued under Section 4 of t...

The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Shakti Bearings and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT92; 2002(63)DRJ305

Held:It is well settled proposition that the court should grant leave to defend as a matter of course if the defendant succeeds in establishing a substantial or a good defense or the facts disclosed by the defendant give rise to triable issues. It is only in an exceptional case where the defense is false, frivolous and vexatious or unreasonable that the leave is refused. At the same time the discretion should be exercised judicially and not capriciously. It is the possibility of the substantial success of the defense that determines the grant or refusal of the leave.J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery filed under Order 37 of Code of Civil procedure. Relevant facts are, in brief, as under :-The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and marketing of iron and steel and iron and steel products. The plaintiff purchased/acquired from once Metal Box (India) Limited, the bearings unit/factory of the said Metal Box (India) Limited on and from October 1, 1983. Due to a se...