Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Marvel Vinyls Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT649TriDel

1. Revenue has filed these three appeals assailing the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) holding as under: "9. Thus in view of the above finding, it is held that the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority suffer from legal infirmity and, therefore, cannot be upheld. They are, therefore, set aside and the appeals are allowed." The Order-in-Original was passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 10,32,303/-, directing to pay interest and imposing penalty of Rs. 1.0 lakh.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Sheeting and Films falling under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents herein submitted their declaration under Rule 173B claiming therein the shrinkage of their product namely PVC sheeting at a rate of 7.5% in cases where the product was sold/cleared in metres and 5% i.e. 100 pieces were being accounted for in cases of 105 pieces, w...

Ram Kumar Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT186TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order-in-original dated 23-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner vide which he had ordered for confiscation of silver weighing 318.519 kg.and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on him, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- had also been imposed through this order by the Commissioner on Shri Shravan Kumar (Noticee No. 2 in the show cause notice), but he has not come up in appeal.2. On 16-12-1990 acting upon an intelligence, raid was conducted on the factory premises of the appellant known as M/s. Ganesh Bullion Refinery at Indore. He himself was, however, not available at the factory at that time, but his employee Shri Shravan Kumar was present there and he was melting the silver. On conducting search, two silver brick weighing 318.595 kg. of foreign origin were recovered and the same were seized as no document regarding the legal acquisition of the same could be produced by Shri Shravan Kumar...

Canara Bank Vs. Mrs. K.P. Shanti Rao and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the lender Bank, namely, Central Bank of India, is against order dated 26.5.1999 passed by DRT, Delhi in O.A. No. 643/96, Central Bank of India v. K.P. Shantirao and Ors.2. The Tribunal below has allowed the recovery application and directed the respondents to pay the suit amount. The appellant Bank is satisfied with that order but is aggrieved in respect of the rate of pendente lite interest awarded by the Tribunal below. Hence, this appeal is only on a limited point whether the appellant should be given that rate of pendente lite interest which it claimed in the original recovery application.3. The appellant had claimed pendente lite interest @ 18% per annum chargeable with quarterly rests. The Tribunal, however, has granted pendente lite interest at simple rate of 12%.5. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appellant ought to have been granted pendente lite interest at the rate of contractual rate of interest. On the other hand, learned...

Rajesh Arora Vs. Mukesh JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)417; 98(2002)DLT29; 2002(63)DRJ392

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. 1. The short controversy involved for determination is whether summons for judgment were duly served upon defendant Nos. 1 & 2 at the address furnished by defendants 1 & 2 in the notice filed while entering into appearance. 2. Admittedly, the address on which defendants 1 & 2 were served summons of the suit as well as notice sent by the plaintiff was 9/6172, Gali Jain Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110 031. It is also admitted that while entering into appearance on service of summons defendants 1 & 2 filed address for service of notice on them as 9/6178, Gali Jain Mandir, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. 3. In order to show that defendant Nos. 1 & 2 has intentionally given wrong address, learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred to the reports of service of the summons as well as various notices and the reports of postman with regard to summons for judgment sent at the address mentioned in the plaint as well as address from where notices sent by the counsel for defendant Nos. ...

Unimode Overseas Limited Vs. J and K Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)806; 97(2002)DLT946

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the petitioner,who is the plaintiff in the suit, assailing the order ofan Additional District Judge dated 26.2.2001 by which hehas dismissed the application of the petitioner filedunder Order 18 Rule 17A and Order 26 Rule 10A readwith Section 151 of the CPC and Section 340 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 4,29,600/- from the respondents 1 & 2 (defendants No. 1 & 2) and one M/s. Zubi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. defendant No. 3 in the suit on the averment that the respondents were acting as clearing and forwarding agent of the petitioner and during the course of the business dealings the petitioner had delivered a consignment of leather garments worth US $ 24,000 to them for shipment to Humberg in Germany from Nhava Sheva Port at Bombay through M/s. Zubi Shipping Pvt. Ltd. The said consignment was...

Shri Ganga Prasad Deceased Through Lrs Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)588; 98(2002)DLT186

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioners, who have been substituted as legal representatives of the deceased defendant, have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC assailing the order of a Civil Judge dated 27.1.2001 by which he had dismissed an application filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17A CPC read with Section 151 CPC and another application filed by these petitioners under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had filed a suit for possession against Ganga Prasad, who had since died and is now represented by the petitioners, on the averment, in short, that Ganga prasad deceased was once a tenant in the suit shop under the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and that in execution of the eviction order the possession of the suit shop was taken over by them and that Ganga Prasad thereafter illegally and forcibly had taken unauthorised possession of the suit shop. This suit was resisted by Ganga Prasad. The evidenc...

Dr. Anurag JaIn and ors. Vs. the Director, All India Institute of Medi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)204; AIR2002Delhi378; 98(2002)DLT406; 2002(62)DRJ816

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioners, four in number, have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to conduct the counselling and filling up of the seats of MDS Course in the 25% quota of All India Entrance Examination. Earlier a writ petition had been filed where the entrance examination to MD/MS/PG Diploma/MDS courses had been challenged on the ground of leakage of papers. The respondents as a result of an initial stay by the Allahabad High Court and the pendency of the petition in this Court, had stopped the counselling for filling up the seats. 2. The case of the petitioners before the court in this petition is that are no allegations of any leakage of papers as far as MDS question paper is concerned and the paper for MDS course was entirely different from those for the MD/MS/PG Diploma courses. 3. Notices has been issued to the Central Government and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 had accepted notice yes...

S.S. Builders Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR553(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT196; 2002(65)DRJ494

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection of some of the claims of the petitioner by the Arbitrator vide award dated 12.7.1994, objections under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act have been filed.2. The Main plank is that the learned Arbitrator by ignoring the letter dated 27.11.1993 sent by respondent-DDA to the petitioner has not only devalued claim no. 1 of the petitioner but has rejected few other claims on the basis of the finding returned by him in respect of claim no. 1 whereas no reasons have been provided while dismissing claim nos. 4 & 7.3. The relevant facts put briefly are as under:- The petitioner was awarded the contract for construction of 120 MIG Houses in Group-IV and reconstruction of 24 MIG demolished houses along with raft foundation. The time for completion or work was eight months from 10th day of issue of letter of acceptance i.e. 14.11.1991. The petitioners case is that except for minor works amounting to Rs. 1,40,000/- (approx.) the main work cou...

Kailash Nath and Associates Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(3)ARBLR631(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT361

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 26.2.1996 who has dismissed the Objections filed by the appellant Contractor and has made the Award passed by Shri P. P. Dharwadkar rule of the Court. Since Objections to an Award essentially partake of the nature of an appeal against the Award, proceedings before us partake of the character of a Second Appeal, necessitating the existence of issues of significant importance for justifying further consideration. When it is further kept in mind that even the proceedings before the Single Judge are akin to revisory and not appellate jurisdiction, it will become palpably obvious that the scope of interference by the Division Bench is minimal. A miscarriage of justice of some moment should have occurred; in our opinion in the present case it has not. It will be relevant to mention that Shri Dharwadker retired as the CMD of NBCC and possessed vast experience specifically relating to the disput...

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Bhagheertha Engg. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)697; 2002(3)RAJ139

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioner - Gas Authority of India Ltd. (in short 'GAIL') has through this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenged the award dated February 16, 2001 in respect of almost every claim and counter-claim awarded by the Arbitrator.2. The award has been assailed mainly on the premise of Section 34 of the Act i.e. the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of submissions made to the Arbitrator and also that it is in conflict with public policy.3. Relevant facts need to be recapitulated in brief.The petitioner GAIL floated a tender for mechanical works for a LPG recovery project at Lakwa (Assam). In terms of the notice inviting tender, every bidder was entitled to make bid in accordance with the tender document. It was open to a bidder to seek labour escalation and extended stay compensation. The claimant/respondent initially in the tender sub sought ...