Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Rajiv Sethi Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries Limited

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 10.10.2001, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. C-882/1999 - entitled Shri Rajiv Sethi v. M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Rajiv Sethi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had booked a shop measuring 250 sq. ft. in Citi Centre Complex of the respondent on 8.9.1996 and for the above purpose had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent by means of cheque. It was stated that against the above said booking, the respondent issued an allotment letter to the appellant wherein the area of the space proposed to be allotted in favour of the ap...

Advik Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC65

1. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to claim DEPB credit at the rate of 12% FOB value of the goods which came to about 32 paise per tablet. In the impugned order it was held that PMV per tablet can be taken as Re. 0.30 and the DEPB credit is restricted to 50% of PMV i.e. Rs. 0.15 per tablet.2. It is not disputed before us that for arriving at the DEPB credit for which the appellant is entitled, the guidelines under Circular No.69/97-Cus. dated 8.12.1997 are to be applied. Clause 3(i)(a) provides that as regards manufacturers-exporters who export under AR4 Form where AR4 value is declared as PMV, the same shall be accepted. It has come out in this case that the appellant has not made available the AR4 value. Appellant prays for an opportunity to produce the above before the authorities. Revenue also agrees that such an opportunity can be granted.3. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh cons...

Commissioner of Customs, Icd Vs. Mehar Printers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC332

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in original passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents made an import of second-hand machinery. The adjudicating authority confiscated the imported machinery and allowed the release of the machinery on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs, and penalty of Rs. 2 lacs, was imposed on the appellant on the ground that the respondents made mis-declaration in respect of the value and regarding the year of manufacture of machinery. The adjudicating authority allowed 15% discount on account or re-conditioning charges to arrive at assessable value of the goods in question. The respondents filed appeal before the Tribunal against the adjudicating order and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 252/2001-A dated 29.6.2001 upheld the confiscation of the goods. However, reduced the redemption fine of Rs. 3 lacs and penalty of Rs. 1.25 lacs and while passing the final order the Tribunal also noticed the argum...

H.R. Vaish Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT370

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner has impugned the letter dated 3.8.99 issued by respondent No. 2 making a demand of Rs. 11,08,948/- along with interest w.e.f. November, 1988 on account of unearned increase in respect of the property bearing No. S-99, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi.4. One Sh. S.K. Aggarwal was allotted the plot in October, 1971 and he executed a special power of attorney in favor of Sh. V R Vaish father of the present petitioner on 24.1.73. The property was constructed upon by Sh. V R Vaish. On 25.11.1988 Sh. S K Aggarwal executed a gift deed in favor of the petitioner stated to be on account of love and affection for the petitioner being the maternal uncle of the petitioner. Other documents including the indemnity bond and affidavit were also executed by the said Sh. S K Aggarwal in favor of the petitioner and necessary approvals were obtained from RBI since S K A...

Raman Kumar Maggo S/O Sh Tilak Raj Maggo Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT561

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Raman Kumar Maggo directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 23rd August, 1999 and 24th August, 1999 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 366, 376 and 324 Indian Penal Code. Thereupon the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months. Lastly for the offence punishable under Section 324 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment...

Cdr. Shekhar Singh and Arun Anand Vs. Mr. N.K. Wahi S/O Sh. Nathu Ram ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]113CompCas293(Delhi)

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. By this order three petitions Crl.M(M) 787/2001, 789/2001 and Crl. R 415/2002 can conveniently be disposed together as they arise out of the similar order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 25th November, 2000.2. Some of the relevant facts are that respondent Shri N. K. Wahi had presented a criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. It had been pleaded that M/s Western India Industries Ltd. is a limited company. The present petitioners along with certain other persons were directors/persons responsible for carrying out the business of the company and liability of those persons is joint and several. Thereafter it had been pointed that certain cheques had been given which were dishonoured on being presented. After giving the necessary notice etc. the complaint as such was filed.3. Petitioners had presented applications for dropping the proc...

Globetech Engineers Vs. Ajay Chadha and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ525

Usha Mehra, J.1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller can pass a composite order short the Act) as well as eviction order under Section 14(1)(a) of the said Act.2. Briefly stated the facts are the Ajay Chadha and others sought eviction of M/s Globetech Engineers, appellants herein on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appellants are in occupation of premises No. 208, Pragati House, 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,100/-. When despite service of notice the appellants did not pay the arrears of rent, petition for eviction was filed. Appellants despite service did not put in appearance, thereforee, proceeded ex-parte. Ex-parte order was passed under Section 15(1) of the Act on 15th September, 1984 with a direction to pay the entire arrears at the agreed rate of rent payable from 1st June, 1983 within one month from the date of the order, failing which it was Further ordered that there will be deemed eviction of the appellant fr...

Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT174

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner recovering any property tax from the plaintiff in respect of the buildings raised on the suit property or on any other rateable value and also to pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to withdraw the warrant of attachment dated 22nd October, 1998, in respect of the suit property, namely buildings Nos. 29 and 30, Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi.2. The case of plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff purchased the aforesaid two plots bearing No.29 and 30, Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi, from the President of India through Delhi Development Authority in an open auction and that the leases in respect of the said two plots were executed in favor of the plaintiff by the President of India through the Delhi Development Authority. It ...

Delhi Transport Corprn. and anr. Vs. Nirmala and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)ACC389; 2003ACJ1300; 103(2003)DLT121

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit.With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of finally.2. The only point argued by learned Counsel for the appellant in this case is that since the claim petition was filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short referred to as 'the Act'), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short referred to as 'the Tribunal') could not have given benefit of Section 163A of the Act to the respondents as the same was clearly prohibited by the provisions of Section 163B before I deal with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant, a few facts relevant for deciding the present appeal are:One Mr. Kishan Lal while going on a cycle on 7th November, 1996 near Aurobindo Marg, was hit by a D.T.C bus bearing No. DEP 9826 driven by appellant No. 2. As a result of the accident, the deceased received fatal injuries and died in the hospital the same day. The legal heirs of the deceased, who are respondents in the present case, filed ...

Davinder Singh Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT540

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction against respondent No. 3-MCD to allocate an alternative site/space to the petitioner within the jurisdiction of Kalkaji Police Station for running his taxi stand and for directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the present site. The factual matrix of the case is that one Kamal Kishore was given Tehbazari rights by respondent No. 3-Corporation who made a request for allotment of general taxi stand which was so allotted on 14.6.1993. It appears that the said Kamal Kishore entered into a transaction with one Surjit Singh and subsequently Surjit Singh and Davinder Singh started acting together.2. A circular has been filed by the respondents in respect of the general taxi stand which says that taxis can stand at the relevant place though one person is issued the authority for the purposes of organisation. On 30.10.1995 the Deputy Commissioner of Police issued an order on the basis of a...