Delhi Court November 2002 Judgments

Prem Cables Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, M/s. Prem Cables, through its sole proprietor Shri Prem Prakash, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), averring therein that Delhi Automobiles Limited (for short opposite party No. 1), is an authorised agent of PAL Peugeot Limited (for short opposite party No. 2), and is dealing with supply and sale of cars, manufactured by opposite party No. 2. It is stated that the complainant had booked a car Make-PAL PEUGEOT 309 in May, 1996 with opposite party No. 1 and had deposited booking amount of Rs. 25,000/- with opposite party No. 1. It is stated that thereafter the complainant further paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party No. 2 by means of a demand draft dated 22.6.1996 payable at Punjab National Bank, Bombay. 2. It is further stated that the complainant subsequently applied for loan facility for the purpose of purchasing the car from opposite party No. 1. It is stated that on ...

State Bank of Patiala Vs. Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs of Ussr

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(4)AWC3243

Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.1. Order passed on 23.5.2001 by learned Single Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent No. 1/appellant seeking amendment to the written statement is under challenge in this appeal.2. Facts in brief are that on 6.12.1997 suit was filed by the Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs of USSR against four defendants State Bank of Patiala, being first defendant;Sumo Exports; Punjab National Bank; I.C.P. Ruslan and Kenwright Limited, being defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs.54,17,632/- along with future interest against defendant No. 1 or such other defendants as the Court may deem fit, inter alia, alleging that they were carrying on the business of banking in Russiaanda broad. Defendant No. 2 is the exporter and defendant No. 1 is the bank of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the designated bank for plaintiff for the purposes of dealing in foreign exchange on its behalf with Reserve Bank of India, in accordance with the inter banking arra...

Vintron Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT589TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 10-2-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The issue relates to classification of add on cards.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "add on cards" and cleared the same under Chapter Heading 8471.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at the rate of 15% ad valorem. In view of audit objection, the classification of add on cards was proposed to be 8473.00 chargeable to duty @ 20% ad valorem in view of HSN Chapter Heading 8473 which covers parts/accessories which are interchangeable parts/devices (page 1401 of HSN). It further clarifies that an assembly consisting of a number of electronic micro-circuits mounted on appropriate shaped carrier and designed as a part of a digital data processing machine storage falls under Heading 84.73. The appellants were issued two show cause notices for differential duty as under : SCN dt. 30-12-94 for Rs. 7,51,244/-...

Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT594TriDel

1. The issue involved, in this appeal filed by Shri Ram Prasad, is whether a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act is imposable on him.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Customs Officers intercepted one Piara Lal, a Safai Karmachari of Indian Airlines, as soon as he came out of the aeroplane and recovered 63 gold biscuits from his possession; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.0 lakh on the appellant on the ground that the impugned gold was to be handed over to the appellant who in turn would have delivered to one Taranjit Singh alias Raju who would have again delivered the gold to one Ibrahim and as such the appellant was an important link between the smuggled gold and ultimate destination. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that no recovery had been effected from the appellant; that he had no knowledge about the apprehension of Piara Lal on 19/20-6-98; that on that night he had remained on duty up to 2.40...

Panacea Biotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT132TriDel

1. The issues involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Panacea Biotcch Ltd., are whether the fermenter imported by them is classifiable under sub-heading 8419.89 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under sub-heading 8479.89 as decided by the Commissioner in the impugned Order; whether benefit of Notification No.16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 (S.No. 202) is available to the Fermenter and whether the payment for the documents relating to design, engineering and site run is to be included in the assessable value of the fermenter.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of life saving drugs including vaccines of Hepatitis "B"; that for the manufacture of said vaccine, they require fermenters and other ancillary equipments; that they imported a pilot fermenter (Biostat-C) and two commercial fermenters; that in addition they also imported from the supplier of the fermenter, documents...

Vinod Krishan Khanna Vs. Neha Export Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC393; [2003]42SCL22(Delhi)

S. Mukherjee, J.1. The present case relates to the suit for recovery of Rs. 9,36,000/- (Rupees Nine Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Only). The brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The Plaintiffs, Non-Resident Indians, residing at 49, Abercorn Crescent, South Harrow, Middlesex HAZ OPX, England (U.K.) The Plaintiff No. 2 Along with Plaintiff No. 1 applied for issuance of shares of Defendant No. 1.3. The Defendant No. 1, is a Limited Company carrying on business of Exports. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the Company Secretary of Defendant No. 1.4. The Defendant No. 2 is stated to have induced the Plaintiffs, vide his telefax dated 05.06.1996, for subscribing to the NRI share for Neha Export issue. In the aid telefax, Mr. Anand Gaggar, the Defendant No. 2, made representation to the effect that 20% deduction is available on capital gains on the sale of Viniyoga Clothes shares and thereby induced the Plaintiffs to send two cheques of Rs. 3,00,0...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Delhi Catholic Archdiocese

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT234

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The writ petitioner raises the question of applicability of the relevant clause of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye-Law, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Bye-laws).2. The respondent is the owner of property being utilised as a pre-primary school in R K Puram-II, New Delhi for which the rateable value was fixed by the assessment order dated February, 1999 wef 1.4.95. The respondent had sought exemption under section 115(4) of the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the property in question but the said exemption was declined by the assessing authority on the ground that building could not be stated to be used only for charitable purpose. The assessing authority further held that the market value of the land has to be taken into consideration. The respondent aggrieved by the said order preferred in appeal before the appellate court and the appeal was partly allowed by the order dated 24.1.2000. The...

Sh. Sudhir Chopra Vs. Sh. Rajinder Nath Chopra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT242

S. Mukerjee, J.1. This application for amendment by which the plaintiff claims that in the written statement filed by the defendant to the original plaint, certain facts have been disclosed about movable property and assets left by late Shri Amarnath Chopra and his wife Vidyawati, which are stated to be in the possession of defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiff contends that since a partition suit has to encompass the entire properties to the knowledge of the plaintiff, as such, upon coming to know about these further movable properties and assets which are in the possession and control of defendant No. 1, thereupon certain amendments have become necessary which he seeks to incorporate by way of the proposed amendment.3. There is no opposition on behalf of defendant No. 2, who is his two page reply has conveyed his no objection, in the following of the amendments prayed for, subject to the plaintiff being called upon to pay reasonable costs to the said non-applicant.4. The defendant No. 1, ...

Forbes Gokak Ltd. Vs. Central Warehousing Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR279(Delhi)

S. Mukherjee, J.1. These are objections to part of an award dated 9th August, 2000 passed by Shri B.K. Sharma, IAS (Retd) inter-alia on the ground that the findings are perverse, and also on the ground that the impugned findings amount to arbitrator creating a contractual provision and also the arbitrator thereby going contrary to the terms of the contract between the parties.2. The Subject matter of the disputes related to a contract for transportation of cargo from the then newly set up inland container depot at Kanpur, to Mumbai port and back in relation to import/export consignments for a period of two years from 6.7.1995 to 5.7.1997, with a spill-over period of further three months beyond the original stipulated period viz 6.7.1997 to 5.10.1997.3. Certain background facts regarding the nature of the work involved and the circumstances leading to the execution of the contract itself, would require to be set out.4. Kanpur being a city which is the hub of exports and imports, as such...

Vijay Pandit and anr. Vs. G.R. Investments India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT454; 2003(66)DRJ692

S. Mukherjee, J.1. By injunction application is 1957/02 the plaintiff has sought interim order restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiffs and its Directors, and from obstructing plaintiffs' ingress and egress, from and into the property bearing No. D-178, defense Colony, New Delhi, otherwise than by due process of law. Defendant through is 2609/02 has applied for vacation of the ex-parte stay.2. Parties have been heard at some length. Yet so as not to make any observation, at this interlocutory stage, except to the minimum extent required for grant of the relief, I propose to proceed upon only one aspect of the matter.3. It is not denied that Shri Vijay Pandit (Plaintiff No. 1), has been in the settled possession (Along with the defendants) of the entire ground floor and second floor, for quite a number of years till date.4. In recent period, plaintiff No. 1 and his wife Smt. Nutan Pandit (who has the controlling shareholding in the defendant Company), are now estranged and...