Delhi Court July 2002 Judgments

Shakun Duggal and ors. Vs. Shakun and Company

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]115CompCas781(Delhi); 100(2002)DLT665; [2004]50SCL398(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This application challenges the maintainability of the company petition on the ground that the provision of Section 439(c) & 4(b) are not satisfied. The relevant clause of Section 439 read as follows:-'439. Provisions as to applications for winding up - (1) An application to the Court for the winding up of a company shall be by petition presented, subject to the provisions of this section-- (a) by the company; or(b) by any creditor or creditors, including any contingent or prospective creditor or creditors; or(c) by any contributory or contributories; or ..... (4) A contributory shall not be entitled to present a petition for winding up a company unless- (a) .....(b) the shares in respect of which he is a contributory, or some of them, either were originally allotted to him or have been held by him, and registered in his name, for at least six months during the eighteen months immediately before the commencement of the winding up, or have devolved on him through the ...

Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ashok Hotel Vs. Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ77Del

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These writ petitions involving common question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 2. The unofficial respondent herein was employed as a Doctor in the India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and at the relevant point of time, he was serving under the petitioner herein. His services were terminated by reason of an order. Questioning the said order of termination, the unofficial respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court which was marked as CWP No. 111/1978. Before this Court in the aforementioned writ petition the unofficial respondent raised the following contentions: 1) The services of the petitioner therein being permanent, his services could not have been terminated by issuing only a three months' notice. 2) The order of termination suffers from the vice of mala fides. 3. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated February 27, ...

Srikrishan Dass Vs. Dena Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Sh. Srikrishna Dass, has filed the present complaint under Section 17(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that the complainant is having a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 1631 in the Wazirpur Delhi Branch of the opposite party. It is stated that on perusing the statement of account dated 3.9.2001, made available to the complainant by the opposite party, the complainant came to know that from the above said Savings Bank Account a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh twenty five thousand only), had been withdrawn unauthorisedly by playing fraud/cheating. It is stated that on 9.9.2001, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Chief Manager (Customer Service) of the opposite party but no satisfactory reply was given by the above said authority. It is stated that thereafter on 11.9.2001, the complainant met DGM of the opposite party and the complainant was assured by the DGM of the opp...

Darshan Singh Ahuja Vs. Institute of Town Planner

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ740

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In the Petition the claim is based on four Bills aggregating Rs. 10,81,583/- in respect of construction allegedly carried out by the Petitioner at Chandigarh for the Chandigarh Regional Chapter, Punjab, of the Institute of Town Planners. Annexure P-2, which is stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner to constitute the contract between the parties, but which inexplicably does not contain any narration or details of the parties thereto, admittedly contains the signatures of the Petitioner, an officer of the Chandigarh Chapter and one witness. There is no signature on behalf of the Respondent Company. Reliance has been placed on a Report of a Meeting held on 24.11.2001, on the letter of Chandigarh Regional Chapter, Punjab of the Institute of Town Planners of India in which it is stated that in respect of the contractor's pending payment to the tune of Rs. 10.81 lakhs, it was decided that the matter shall be taken up in the next Council Meeting after completion of...

Commissioner of Customs (Acu) Vs. Malvika Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC707Tri(Delhi)

1. The respondents - M/s. Malvika Steel Ltd., Jagdishpur, U.P. filed two Bills of Entry dated 17-10-97 and 26-11-97 at the Air Cargo Unit, New Custom House, New Delhi, for clearance of a consignment of 'Computer Software' claiming exemption from payment of customs duty as per Sl. No. 173 of the Table annexed to the Notfn. No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 as amended. This entry reads as follows : 2. The imported goods were examined and it was found that the first import of software was for use to control the speed of the drive motors which moved the heated billets from the re-heat furnace by regulating the RPM of the motors. The input to software was provided from the encoders, hot metal detectors, pyrometers, limit switch etc. The second import of software had been specially developed by the suppliers for management of data logging system of mini blast furnace and was to be used on computers for better control of blast furnace. The proceedings were, however, initiated against the importin...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Wooltex Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT451TriDel

1. The officers of Central Excise Preventive, Amritsar, visited the factory premises of M/s. Wooltex Industries, Amritsar on 25-1-1998 and found that they were engaged in the printing of grey fabrics with the aid of power and steam on job work basis. The unit was found working and the party was doing printing on man-made fabrics. Shri Satnam Singh, partner of the appellants-firm informed the visiting officers that there's is a partnership firm and they had installed the machinery for printing the fabrics; that they were receiving grey man-made fabrics from the traders and after doing printing, the same were dispatched in the running lengths to the traders under the cover of invoices/challans. The visiting officers seized 270 metres valued at Rs. 4,950/- of finished printed fabrics lying in the unit and the proceedings were initiated against them. They were issued a show cause notice dated 20-7-1998 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Amritsar in which they were called upon t...

Dalbir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ818

Vijender Jain, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of services from DTC. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/DTC. On 7.1.2002 this Court directed the respondent to produce the record and in this regard several opportunities were granted to the respondent. Today Mr. Luthra made a statement that the records are not available in the office of the respondent.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of termination of the service of the petitioner on the ground that inquiry was not conducted properly as the petitioner was not allowed to call the defense witnesses. My attention has been drawn to the application dated 6.2.1987 filed by the petitioner before the Chairman and Depot Manager of DTC. A copy thereof is at page 41 of the paper-book. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no date has been given on the inquiry report by the inquiry officer. It was further contended by learned c...

Jeewan Mittal Vs. M/S. Hoffland Agro

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant Shri Jeewan Mittal is directed against order dated 14.2.2002, passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 710/2001 entitled Shri Jeewan Mittal v. M/s. Hoffland Agro. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Jeewan Mittal, had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. The above said complaint, filed by the appellant, has been disposed of by the District Forum vide order dated 14.2.2002 which reads as under : None for complainant. Sh. B.B. Sharma brought in custody for respondent. He has brought to our notice that an identical case was filed by the complainant before the Forum at Janakpuri and the matter has been decided there. The file has been transferred by Janakpuri Forum to this Forum and is fixed for consideration today. The present case is a misuse of the process of the...

Cce Vs. Reliance Chemotex Ind. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC627

1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order about cash discount observed, "Accordingly I hold that disallowing of cash discount in the impugned order is not justified and is set aside." Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also held, "As regards penalty, since relief is given to the appellant on the issue at 'A' above involving a duty of Rs. 91,317, the penalty imposed in the impugned order of Rs. 1,13,000 is reduced to Rs. 22,000." Being aggrieved by this order Revenue have filed this appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of MM blended yarn. They were allowing cash discount at a rate 2.5% to the buyers who made payment within 10 days from the date of receipt of goods. Scrutiny of records however revealed that during the period September 1998 to December 1999 the respondents herein claimed deduction on account of cash discount to the tune of Rs. 4,65,121. However, in some cases payments were not received within ti...

Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT188TriDel

1. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held, "I therefore, hold that demand of duty does not sustain. Accordingly, I vacate the same. I also do away with the penalty imposed Under Section 11AC. However, I uphold the penalty imposed u/r 173Q for various procedural lapses and contravention of Central Excise Rules by the appellant. Appeal allowed with partial relief".2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) further held, "As regards the issue on limitation, I find that the appellant had placed sufficient evidence on record for information of the Department, so no cause existed for invocation of extended period".3. Being aggrieved by the order regarding imposition of penalty u/r 173Q the assessee has filed the Appeal No. E/1247/2002-NB. Being aggrieved by the order of not sustaining demand of duty Revenue has filed the Appeal No. E/1135/2002-D.4. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.5....