Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

Garwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Raj Dutta and Others

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 21.2.2002, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. TC-2983/1998 entitled Shri Raj Dutta and Ors. v. Garwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondents Shri Raj Dutta and five others had filed a joint complaint before the District Forum under Section 17 of the Act, averring therein that acting upon the various advertisements and representations, made by the appellant, the respondents got booked six seats with the appellant after making a payment @ Rs. 3,045/- per seat to the appellant for Delhi-Kedarnath-Badrinath tour which was to commence from Delhi from 30.5.1994. The tour for which the booking was done was to be organised by the appellant and the duration of the tou...

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(110)LC104Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants M/s Whirpool of India Ltd. is a manufacturer of refrigerator. The appellant also manufacturers certain plastic parts required for the manufacture of refrigerators in one of its Units.These are mostly transferred to its manufacturing division for using in such manufacture. Some parts are also sold in the replacement market. A Show-cause Notice dated 3.11.2000 was issued alleging that during the period October 1995 to June 1998 there was a short-levy of central excise duty of Rs. 31,60,581/- in the plastic parts division on account of non-inclusion of the cost attributable to moulds and dies while computing the cost of production of these plastic parts. Even prior to issue of Show-cause Notice, on 11.4.2000, M/s. Whirpool of India Ltd. deposited the duty amount. Subsequently, on 20.9.2002, the impugned order was passed confirming the duty demand, imposing penalty of an equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and demanding payment of interest Section 1...

Cce Vs. Oripol Industries, Utkal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC239

1. The question referred for consideration by the Larger Bench is whether Commissioner (Appeals) does have jurisdiction to remand the appeal before him after the amendment of Section 35A by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001. Reference was necessitated in view of difference of opinion between two Benches of this Tribunal on the issue. A learned Single Member of East Regional Bench took the view in CCE & Customs Bhubaneshwar v. Indian Aluminium Co., 2002 (50) RLT 92 that even after the amendment the Commissioner (Appeals) has inherent power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration. The Referring Bench agreed with the above view.But it was noted that a Division Bench of Bombay Bench of this Tribunal has taken a different view in Vipor Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, 2002 (144) ELT 385. It was held therein that after the amendment w.e.f. 11-5.2001 the Commissioner (Appeals) will have no power of remand.2. In CCE...

Vivek Sondhi Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ142

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of the petition.2. The petition raises a pure question of law as to whether the Estate Officer while passing an order under Section 7 of the Public Premises {Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act') is empowered to award interest at the contractual rate or in terms of Section 7(2A) of the Act. The matter in controversy lies in a narrow compass.3. The petitioner assails the order of the Addl. District Judge dated 27th April 2000 awarding interest @ 24% being the contractual rate of interest contrary to the spirit of Section 7(2A) of the Act providing for payment of current interest.4. Briefly stated the facts are that shop No. 3 at Safdar Hashmi Marg was allotted to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.5.1994 at a license fee of Rs. 7,056/- per month. The license deed was executed on 10.5.1994. The petitioner defaulted in payment of license fee. The license deed was cancelled on 14.12.199...

Natwarlal Shamaldas and Co. Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporatio ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)229; 2002(64)DRJ354

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Common questions of facts and law arise in these five appeals. Hence we shall dispose them off by this judgment. The parties had entered into five separate 'Manganese Ore Purchase Contracts' between 15.2.1966 and 3.4.1967, for an aggregate of 1,25,000 metric tonnes. The supply by the respondent/Claimants was on F.O.B. Indian port basis. The appellant/Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the MMTC') was obliged to nominate the vessel for shipment to the actual purchaser after each consignment had been brought to the port by the Claimant/M/s. Natwarlal Shamaldas & Co. A Declaration of load readiness was to be granted by the MMTC for each consignment once it was so brought for export. The Claimants allegation is that due to the defaults and delay of the MMTC, the Claimants incurred damages on account of financial borrowings and interest thereon; and on account of expenses towards custody, watch and ward, and storage of the...

Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Prentice Hall Inc. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi236; 2002(25)PTC511(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Suit No.200/2000 is filed by the Prentice Hall India Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Indian Company'). The main defendant is defendant No.1, namely, Prentice Hall Inc. which is a company incorporated in USA. The defendants 2 to 6 are the companies incorporated in different countries other than India which are associate companies of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, breach of contract, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc.2. It may be mentioned at the outset that the plaintiff was incorporated in India on 6.6.1963 as a joint venture with defendant No.1. The basis for filing the present suit is Agreement dated 7.9.1983 between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 under which the plaintiff claims to have exclusive rights to print, reprint, translate, adapt, publish and sell in India and export to any other Asian or other countries low-cost standard text books and ...

Swaranpal Singh Lamba Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT107; 2003(2)SLJ74(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner by this suit writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith change the date of birth of petitioner in the Airline Transport Pilot's license (ALTP) No. 1530 in the office of respondent No. 1, i.e., Director General of Civil Aviation. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 19.2.2001, by which the petitioner's application for change of date of birth from 7.12.1942 to 7.9.1945 was rejected.2. Petitioner was born in Rawalpindi, West Pakistan and had migrated to Delhi in 1947 at the time of partition along with his parents. It is claimed that petitioner's parents, who were illiterate had got him admitted to Ramjas High School and at the time of admission gave his date of birth as 7.12.1942, by mistake instead of 7.9.1945. Petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination in 1959. In the school records as well as the Higher Secondary Certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 7....

Satyawati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ827

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The husband of the petitioner Sh. Ravi Datt was working as a Peon with the respondent - Punjab National Bank and passed away on 26.2.1999. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was rejected vide letter dated 7.4.2002. Petitioner has thus filed the present writ petition for quashing of the said letter and for her appointment on compassionate grounds.2. A perusal of the letter dated 7.4.2000 shows that the ground for rejection stated therein is the financial condition of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 appearing today states that apart from the said reason the petitioner also does not fulfill the minimum qualifications of metriculation. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 has placed before this court the 'Scheme of employment of dependants of the employees who died in service of the bank on compassionate grounds' and the relevant paragraph dealing with the qualifications is as under :-'8. QU...

Dhanvinder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 98(2002)DLT334; II(2002)DMC214; 2003(66)DRJ280

S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The petitioners 1 to 6 in the present case are accused numbers 7 to 12 in FIR No. 232/2001 registered under Sections 498A and 406 IPC by Police Station Chittaranjan Park. The case of the petitioners is that despite there being no direct blood or marriage relation between the petitioners and the complaint Smt. Chander Kanta, they have been dragged into the abovementioned FIR simply because petitioner No. 1 happened to have come to know the father-in-law of the complaint during business trips, and otherwise as family-friends. The telephone number of accused No. 7 had been given for local contact reference purposes at the stage of negotiation of the marriage, and the petitioners also, who had limited role to play in relation to the marriage and the ceremonies and certain other matters related therewith, only in the said capacity of family friends. It is contended that thereforee they (petitioners) could not be roped in to the FIR No. 232/2001 relating to alleged offence...

Jindal Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT406; 2003(85)ECC802; 2002(145)ELT508(Del)

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Hissar. He has also prayed that the demand vide letter dated 14.3.2001 of the Department directing the petitioner to debit the P.L. Account by an amount of Rs. 24,15,688/- be quashed. It is incorporated in the petition that prior to 1.4.2000 under the Central Excise Act the petitioner was required to deposit the amount of excise duty due with the department on consignment basis, i.e. the duty had to be paid on the basis of each consignment of the manufactured goods cleared through Account Current i.e. in cash or through the credit balance lying in Cenvat Account.2. The Central Government, however, amended the Central Excise Rules 49 & 173-G from April, 2000 and introduced a scheme for payment of excise duty in Installments, by which the excise duty for the first fortnight of the month became payable by the 20th day of the month and the duty for the second...