Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

Sh. Prem Chand Goddodia Vs. Sh. Jaswant Rai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT197

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J. 1. I propose to dispose of this application preferred by the defendant under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC as well as Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. This application is filed by the defendant without filing the written statement. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.15 lacs which amount plaintiff is claiming from the defendant as damages for using scurrilous remarks against him thereby defaming the plaintiff. It would be appropriate to first take stock of the averments made in the plaint on the basis of which present suit is filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff who claims to be well-known person enjoying respect in the echelons of the society and belonging to a respectable family is also an honorary president of the Rajasthan Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (for short 'society'). The defendant was also a member in this society who happens to be Architect by profession doing the business under the ba...

Shri S. P. Saigal Vs. Shri Sunil Saigal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ801

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Clumsiness in human relations knows no bounds. The plaintiff wants to evict his son and grant-son from the house which once was owned by his mother and gifted to him subsequently as he and his wife are allegedly being beaten and subjected to humiliation on daily basis.2. The plaintiff has two more sons who are living in the same house. However defendants 1 & 2 have been harassing and abusing the plaintiff and his wife and on few occasions even physically assaulted them in order to pressurise them to leave the house of which the plaintiff is the absolute the exclusive owner. So much so they were insulted, humiliated before the people of locality and intervention by relatives and friends has not helped the parties in resolving their disputes.3. The defendants started staking their claim in the suit property when they were asked to vacate the premises because of their highly unbecoming conduct culminating in physical beating to the plaintiff and his wife and when th...

C.S. Rathour (Advocate) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ522

ORDERArijit Pasayat C.J.1. This petition is stated to have been filed in public interest with the following prayers:(1) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing and commanding Union of India to cancel/withdraw/defer its decision taken on 23rd May. 2001 regarding inviting Pak Chief Executive General Parvez Musharraf now the President of Pakistan for his visit to India and subsequent invitation letter dated 25th May, 2001 sent by the Prime Minister of India Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee to the Pak Chief Executive General Parvez Musharraf now the self designated President of Pakistan because the said invitation will not serve the desired purpose in terms of its spirit and language of the letter because for Pakistan and its President General Parvez Musharraf is still adamant for plebiscite in Kashmir treating the J&K; as a disputed territory and 'core issue' in the Agenda of his talk with Indian Prime Minister and demanding solution of Jammu & Ka...

Jason Links(i) Pvt. Limited Vs. Mtnl and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT543; 2001(60)DRJ100

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Pursuant to this application the award dated 30th March, 1995 passed by Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Sole Arbitrator and Chief engineer Civil Department of Telecom was filed for making the award rule of the Court. Responding to the notice the respondent filed objections under Sections 15, 16, 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. Respondent no. 1 had awarded the work of construction of cable duct system is Shakti Nagar Local Net Works (ii) for Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, New Delhi to the petitioner/claimant. since certain disputes and differences arose between the parties during the execution of the said work the matter was referred for adjudication to Sole Arbitrator- respondent no.2 by the CGM, MTNL to decide and make the award regarding claims/disputes raised by the contractor (Annexure-!) and the counter claims of MTNL if any.3. The validity of the award has been challenged mainly on the ground that the award suffers from legal error apparent on the face of i...

M/S. Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. M/S. Intermolde India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(3)ARBLR569(Delhi); 94(2001)DLT474

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The present application has been filed for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudicating the disputes having arisen between the parties out of an agreement/contract dated 14th January, 1992 for the sale of plastic molded furniture in the states of Haryana, Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh. The respondent M/s Intermolde India was appointed as the main dealer of the applicant company. The respondent was at liberty to appoint sub-dealers in the region allotted to it for the sale of furniture and at the request of the respondent the applicant was to dispatch the plastic moulded furniture directly to the sub-dealers/sister firms of the respondent for convenience. The respondent was entitled to trade discount as per the terms of the agreement. The applicant was maintaining running a...

Cit Vs. Kishan Advani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]120TAXMAN668(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Heard.2. Following the directions given by this Bench in CIT v. Bercos Melody House (2002) 120 Taxman 669 (Del), we remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in terms of the said order.3. The reference is disposed of accordingly....

M/S. Sakumbari Sugar and Allied Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.10.97 vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.1.97 disallowing modvat credit on the various goods in question as "capital goods" to them.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the issue as to whether the goods falls within the ambit of definition of "capital goods" in terms of Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules read with Explanation I appended thereto, deserves to be re-examined in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of 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. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commiss...

M/S. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)LC6Tri(Delhi)

1.This appeal has been preferred by the appellants M/s. Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. against the impugned order dated 30.1.2001 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) vide which he had confirmed the order in original dated 28.9.99 of the Deputy Commissioner and disallowed deductions on account of dyeing charges, trade discount and cash discount from the assessable value of their final product i.e. cotton yarn, manufactured by them.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of the cotton yarn falling under Chapter 52 of the CETA. They opted for provisional assessment as they were transferring the stock of the cotton yarn to their sale depots located at various places. They had been paying Central Excise duty on the said yarn on the tentative value at the factory gate. At the time of the final assessment for the period 1.10.96 to 31.3.97, they were disallowed deductions in all of Rs. 2611009/- fr...

M/S. Pearl Drinks Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10,68,457 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II. The demand arises as a result of disallowing deduction of Rs. 13,42,924 on account of loss of beverages in duty paid godowns and in transit from godown to the customers, and deduction of Rs. 27,50,072 claimed in respect of free supply of bottles of aerated water, manufactured and cleared by the applicants herein during the period from 1.4.95 to 31.10.95.2. On hearing both sides, we are of the view that a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit has been made out since out of the total claim for deduction of Rs. 9,55,85,556 under various headings, as set out in the show cause notice, inadmissible deductions stated in the show cause notice are to the extent of Rs. 1,37,97,580 and the extent of inadmissible deduction found by the adjudicating authority is Rs. 40,92,996, thus prima facie leaving sufficient cushion against admissible ...

Shri Parasanjeet Pandey Vs. Shyamal Ghosh and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. C.P. No. 17/2001 has been filed by Shri Prasanjeet Pandey, alleging non-implementation of the Tribunal's Order dated 24.8.2000 in OA No.1438/99.2. Head Shri B.T. Kaul, learned Counsel alongwith Shri Vinod Kumar for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Rao, learned Counsel of M/s. Sikri and Co, for the respondents.3. O.A. No. 1438/99, filed by Sh. Prasanjeet Pandey, the petitioner in the present CP, and belonging to Telecom organisation, seeking his promotion to T.E.S. Group 'B' which had been held back on account of some pending investigation, was disposed by the Tribunal on 24.8.2000.The operative portion of the said order reads as below: " 19. In the result the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The sealed cover procedure adopted in the case of the applicant by the DPC is quashed. The respondents are directed to give him all the consequential benefits, including the promotion to the higher post, from the date on which his immediate junior has been promoted, if he has been f...