Delhi Court April 2002 Judgments

Goodyear India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(103)LC13Tri(Delhi)

1. Both the above captioned appeals have been filed against the common Order-in-appeal dated 28.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).Appeal No. E/2542/01-NB has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the credit of the disputed amount of Rs. 2,17,71,168/- could not be disallowed. While other appeal No. E/2135/01-NB is by the Revenue being dissatisfied with the impugned order to the extent of setting aside, much less enhancing, the penalty amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The assessees are engaged in the manufacture of tyres falling under Chapter 40 of CETA. On scrutiny of their RT-12 return for the month of October, 1996, it revealed that they had wrongly taken credit of A.E.D. on nylon tyre cord fabric of Rs. 2,77,96,280/- in RG 23A part-II register vide entry No. 2271 dated 7.10.1996 for the period April, 1995 to March, 1996. The credit was required to be taken w...

Motheson Sumi Systmes Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC601

1. M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. is a manufacturer of wiring harnesses. The manufacture is carried out according to specific orders of automotive and air conditioning industry, against specific contracts. In some cases the appellant received certain component parts of wiring harness, free of charge, from their buyers. These components were also incorporated in the wiring harness. In such cases, the value of the free supply component parts were not added to the prices of wiring harnesses while fixing their assessable value and paying excise duty on them. The order impugned in this appeal has demanded duty attributable to the price of such components and has imposed penalties on the manufacturer as well as the officers of the company. The period of duty demand extends from March 1995 to January, 1997. The show cause notice was issued on 13.3.2000.2. The law relating to the inclusion of the price of free supply items in the assessable value of goods produced with the free supply mater...

Amar Nath Sehgal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)349; 2002(2)ARBLR130(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT439; 2002(63)DRJ558

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Arbitraribility or otherwise of the suit subject, in the face of arbitration clause, forming part of an agreement between the parties, is a short question posed for consideration in the present context. An answer in affirmative forecloses trial to pave way for adjudication in the matter in controversy by an arbitrator.2. Factual content emanating from plaintiff's pleadings takes one way back to July, 1957 when the plaintiff, responding to an offer from Central Public Works Department(defendant No. 2) of Union of India(defendant No. 1), to create a bronze mural for display at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi, set out to accomplish the challenging task. After extensive preparation and research, plaintiff's untiring and stressful concentrated hardwork, spanning over a period of five years, dedicated to the cause, eventually produced an acclaimed piece of artistic work manifesting itself in the form of a 140 feet long and 40 feet high mural, demonstrating a delicate balance b...

Dr. Jai Hari Agarwal Vs. University of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)463; 100(2002)DLT144

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner Dr. Jai Hari Jai Aggarwal by the present writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Note 2 in Clause II contained in the Bulletin of Information (Post- Doctoral/Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses) Session-2002 of the University of Delhi. The above Note requires a Diploma Holder who is desirous of obtaining admission in the post Graduate Degree course i.e. MD in a subject other than that of the Diploma, to give a gap of 2 years. Alternatively, it is prayed that the said impugned Note 2 to Clause II be held as prospective in operation and not applicable to the petitioner.2. The factual matrix of the case may be briefly noticed. The petitioner has excellent academic credentials and has attained the 1st position in the merit list in the entrance test conducted by University of Delhi for admission to Post-Graduate course in Session 2002. The petitioner had completed his MBBS in the year 1996, and enrolled himself for 2 years Diploma...

Shri Bhim Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)960; 2002CriLJ4748; 98(2002)DLT216; 2002(63)DRJ421

Khan, J.1. Petitioner was externed from Delhi for six months by order dated 20.8.2001 passed by DCP (NW). He took appeal against this before Lt. Governor which was dismissed by order dated 12.9.2001. He has now filed this petition challenging the two orders.2. Petitioner's case, in short, is that he was a person of substance, an income-tax payee and an agriculturist and that he was falsely implicated in nine cases out of which he had earned acquittal in seven and, thereforee, there was no basis or justification for removing him from the limits of Delhi. His counsel Mr. Sandeep Sethi attacked the order on the ground that Commissioner had failed to reflect the opinion in it that no witness was willing to come forward to depose against the externee. Nor was there anything to show that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to depose against petitioner for fear of safety of their person or property. The camera witnesses examined had nowhere stated so but had only said that petitioner was...

Saket Cultural Club (Regd) Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)870; 98(2002)DLT20; 2002(62)DRJ638

R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 14th May, 1998 by which an application under Order 12 Rule 6 moved on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff herein praying for a judgment in its favor based on certain admitted position in the suit has been dismissed.2. The brief facts to be noted for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner-club has filed a suit for recovery of possession after terminating the tenancy of the respondent-Bank by means of a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The rent of premises being admittedly over Rs. 3500/- per month. The suit is being contested by the respondent-Bank, inter alia, on the ground that the said notice of termination of tenancy issued on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff-Club stood waived in as much as a new tenancy was created by means of a lease agreement dated 26.4.1984 at enhanced rent of Rs. 20,800/- per month. The petitioner-Club soug...

Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)884; 2002CriLJ4222

Khan, J. 1. Petitioner is facing two cases RCS18 and RCS19 which are under investigation by CBI. All he wants in this petition is that investigation of these cases be taken away from respondents 3 to 5 and handed over to some high ranking CBI officer. 2. Petitioner was on deputation holding the post of Deputy Director in the Enforcement Directorate at the relevant time. He claims that he was handling the investigation of a number of sensitive cases of influential individuals including politicians, etc. and that his Director that time one Mr. Bez Boruah was making all out efforts to scuttle the investigation in those cases. He made representations against him to Revenue Secretary and meanwhile a raid was conducted under his supervision on the residence of one Subhash Barjatya resulting in seizure of some incriminating documents and disclosing the transaction of US$ 1.50 lacs and involving one Abhishek Verma also. Accused Barjatya made a complaint against him to Director Bez Boruah alleg...

Shri Sonu Upadhayay Vs. the State (Nct) of Delhi, Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)822; 2002CriLJ4187; 98(2002)DLT88

Khan, J.1. Petitioner stands externed for two years by order dated 6.8.01 passed by DCP (NW). His appeal against order has also failed. He has now filed this petition challenging the two orders.2. Petitioner's case, as set out in his petition, is that he was implicated in false cases and that he had earned acquittal in all cases except two and that he had not been involved in any criminal case for the last more than three years and, thereforee, there was justification for his externment from Delhi.3. L/C for the petitioner pressed in service only two ground before us viz (i) that delay of three years in passing the externment order would vitiate it and(ii) the order was liable to be quashed also as the petitioner was not found to be involved in any criminal activity for the last about four years. No other ground was canvassed before us.4. Respondents have justified the order in their reply. Their stand is that petitioner was involved in 16 cases of robbery, obstructing government serva...

All India Lawyers Union (Delhi-unit) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ681

Devinder Gupta, J.1. Under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (Act) No. 27 of 1996, the State Government has on 10.1.2002 notified the rules called as the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002. Same have been published in Delhi Gazette and have now come into force on publication of the same in the Gazette. Labour Commissioner, Delhi has been appointed as Chief Inspector of Inspection of Building and Construction under the Act. In addition, registering officers, appellate officers and Inspectors have also been appointed. Learned counsel for the respondents State that process is on to constitute the State Welfare Board under Section 18(1) BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT, 1996 of the Act and for the State Advisory Committee under Section 4(1) BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ...

Nek Ram Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 9.10.2001, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3298/2001 entitled Sh. Nek Ram v. The Accounts Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Sh. Nek Ram, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant was the registered consumer in respect of electricity connection, bearing No. 1222082, installed at K-604, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. It was stated that the appellant had been receiving bills for consumption of electricity in respect of the above said electricity connection at the rate of Rs. 160/- for 2 months. It was further stated that the appellant on 12.8.1999 and 12.10.1999 received exorb...