Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Mr. R. Vinay Kumar Bhasin

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT308

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 9th December, 1997 passed by the Court of Ms. Indermeet Kaur Kochhar, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi dismissing revision of the petitioner and the order dated 15th March, 1997 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act').2. Facts in brief are that Ravi Bhandari, respondent No. 1 issued a cheque dated 15th January, 1996 of Rs. 10,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Paharganj, New Delhi in favor of Standard Chartered Bank towards discharge of debts and other liabilities; on presentation of the same, the cheque was dishonoured; the payment was not made despite service of notice; petitioner filed a complaint through one of its employees against the respondent under Section 138 of NI Act. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the same was not filed by the duly authorised persons an...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Pentafour Products Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)527; 2003(1)ARBLR162(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT767

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC seeking setting aside of the Judgment dated 30th July, 2001 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed on account of the failure of the defendant to enter appearance within the period of 10 days as prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 37 CPC.2. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the application for condensation of delay in entering the appearance was dismissed vide order dated 30th July, 2001. Grounds for recall or setting aside the said order are in brief as under:-(i). That the service upon defendant No. 1 was effected only on 3rd July, 2001 whereas the service with respect to defendant No. 2, as contemplated by Order 37 Rule 2 CPC was also effected only on 3rd July, 2001 though the summons of the suit were received on 23rd May, 2001 by registered post and, thereforee, entering of appearance on 2nd July, 2001 was within the prescribed period.(ii). That the dispute sought to be raised in the ...

J.S. Sandhu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT10

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The short question involved in this petition is as to whether the seniority of the writ petitioners should be counted on the basis of the length of continuous service irrespective of the date of joining at Armed Forces Headquarters.2. The petitioners who are seven in number had begun their career as LDC or in the equivalent grades in Lower defense Formations in the defense Ministry on different dates. They having been found surplus, allegedly were transferred to AFHQ in public interest between 16.4.62 and 27.4.64. In the Original Application, they claimed that their seniority should be reckoned from their respective dates of joining as LDC/equivalent in the Lower defense Formation in the defense Ministry. In other words, according to them the services rendered by them earlier between December 1957 and September 1960 should be treated as continuous for the said purpose.3. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners were governed in terms of OM dated 21st...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shri J.P. Verma and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT510; [2003(96)FLR184]

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Union of Indian the respondent before the learned Tribunal, is the writ petitioner herein. It has questioned a judgment and order dated 16th November 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in its OA No. 1459/2000 wherein the respondent herein approached the learned Tribunal Purported to protect himself against the implementation of purported illegal order which was about to be passed by the petitioner reverting and repatriating him to his parent cadre i.e. State of Orissa.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The first respondent was sent on deputation as Additional Director General of Police in CRPF. The first respondent who is a member of the Indian Police Force and allotted the cadre of State of Orissa was appointed on deputation basis as Additional Director General of Police in CRPF by order dated 22nd June 1998 until further orders. He was sponsored for the post of Director General (Investigation) in the National Human R...

Shri Rajender Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT706; [2002(95)FLR29]; (2002)IIILLJ378Del

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order dated 23rd May 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed summarily on the ground that he had an alternative remedy under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short).2. The admitted fact of the matter is as under:The appellant was served with a charge-sheet on 15th December 1992. A departmental enquiry was held there into leading to his termination from service.An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act was filed by the respondent which was marked as OP No. 135/93 and by an order dated 27th May 1999, the learned tribunal dismissed the said application holding:'I have heard Sh. I.S. Mehra, AR of DTC and Sh. M.S. Kapoor AR of the workman/respondent. Although the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and the respondent participated in it but the finding is perverse. As AW1 admitted in the cro...

Jagat Ram Trehan and Sons Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT689; 2002(64)DRJ92

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Pursuant to the application under Section 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act moved by the petitioner the award was filed. On being noticed the respondent DDA has assailed it by way of is 9723/95. The main thrust of the objections appears to be in respect of claim No. 31 though as a ritual, each and every item of the award has been challenged.2. Any award on factual matrix and based upon evidence and material produced by the parties does not admit interference unless the Arbitrator has completely ignored a document which is material for the just and fair decision. Similarly if the Arbitrator has tied himself down to an unsound legal proposition it amounts to legal misconduct and award on this count is liable to be set aside.3. As regards item No. 2 of the claim which is on account of non-payment of work done of cutting and straightening reinforcement steel bars, Ms. Ansuyya Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the work of cutting and straightening ...

Rajinder Pd. Gupta Vs. General Manager, M.T.N.L.

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 26th March, 2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 182/2001 entitled Shri Rajinder Pd. Gupta v. The General Manager, M.T.N.L. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, against the respondent before the District Forum. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellant and has granted relief to the appellant, as detailed in the impugned order. 3. Not being satisfied, the appellant has prefered the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. 4. We have heard the Authorised Representative of the appellant at length on the questio...

Naviar International Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC472

1. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry dated 8.5.98 with the Air Cargo, New Customs House, New Delhi for the clearance of Hard Disk, VM 40, VCOM and FV 684E Frequency Card and declared their value at Rs. 3,74,460. On examination of the goods, the same were found as per the declaration except for the item VM 40, which was not found in the consignment. The proceedings were initiated against the importers. The importers vide their letter dated 5.5.98, submitted that some different goods had arrived by mistake and these were not the ones asked for by them vide the purchase order placed by them. They therefore, requested that the goods may be allowed to be re-exported. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs after considering the submissions of the party, vide his Order dated 20.7.98 observed that the imported goods were mounted printed circuit boards. As per the EXIM Policy, the import of mounted printed circuit boards required a special import licence whereas the importers have sought the clear...

Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC202

1. Arguing the Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 25,71,946 and a penalty of an equal amount Shri A. R.Madhav Rao, learned Counsel submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn and man-made fabrics; that they were transporting yarn and fabrics to godown of the transporter in their own vehicle and charging a sum of Rs. 10/25 per piece. He submits that in addition to this job the applicants also insured the goods against any damage during transit; that Show-cause Notica was issued by the Department proposing inclusion of cost of freight and insurance to the ex-mill price. He submits that the transfer of possession of the goods takes place at the factory gate and hence the factory gate is the place of removal; that the statements on the back of the invoices/purchase orders clearly indicate that the prices are ex-mill price and the date of delivery is the date of despatch; that the sale of the goods is complete at the factory gate; that p...

Himpex Private Limited Vs. National Fertilizers Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)249; 2003(1)ARBLR166(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT254

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. The award dated 6.3.1995 which is sought to be made rule of the court has been assailed by the respondent-objector on the following grounds:-i) The award is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Arbitrator has considered and dealt with claims which are outside the scope of reference. The reference was made to the disputes arising out of purchase order No. 102/90/2223/943 whereas the Arbitrator has dealt with the disputes pertaining to different purchase orders. ii) Under the disputed purchase order, the respondent was required to reimburse central sales tax at 2% whereas claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of additional 2% sales tax was allowed by the Arbitrator. Thus, the award with regard to claim No. 1 is beyond the terms of the agreement. iii) The Arbitrator has wrongly awarded liquidated damages which the respondent had levied on the petitioner on account of delay on the part of the respondent. iv) The Arbitrator has allowed payment of gulf charges which ac...