Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Akkena Pragad Perraju Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)533; 102(2003)DLT490; 2003(66)DRJ439; 2003(1)SLJ111(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR156

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in General Reserved Engineer Force (GREF) as a Leading-Hand (non-technical) on 9.11.1991. Noticing that his behavior had turned abnormal, in April 1998, the petitioner was directed to report to Senior Medical Officer of 42 BRTF for his medical examination, who in turn advised the administrative authority to send him for psychiatric examination. In July 1998, the petitioner was eventually referred to 155 Base Hospital, Tejpur, Assam for specialised treatment. After specialised medical treatment petitioner's category was downgraded as GREF-III (Temporary) for 6/12 years with effect from 18.7.1998 and he reported back to his unit. After his discharge from the Base Hospital on 14.7.1998, he was required to visit the Base Hospital again after six months for review. According to the petitioner during his stay at Base Hospital, Tejpur, he was subjected to discriminatory treatment being not from regular Army. The factum of ill- treatment at th...

Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Limited Vs. Smt. Geetanjali Despande and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)497; 102(2003)DLT570; 2003(66)DRJ456

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. On an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC(IA.930/00) made by respondent No.1-plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint in certain respects, an order dated 10.4.2002 came to be passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the application. Material part of this order reads as under:-'The amendments sought for have become necessary in view of the recent final notice issued by the Delhi Development Authority alleging misuse of the property by the occupants of the said property. In my considered opinion, the amendment sought for is also necessary for effective determination of the lis between the parties. I am also satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the amendment, even if allowed, would not in any manner change the nature and character of the suit. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. The amendment sought by the plaintiff shall be incorporated in the plaint.'2. Appellant-defendant No.3 felt aggrieved by the said order and, conseq...

Lufthansa German Air Lines Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines Employees Uni ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IAD(Delhi)709; 102(2003)DLT762; 2003(67)DRJ217; [2003(97)FLR446]; (2003)IILLJ212Del; 2003(1)SLJ208b(Delhi)

Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.1. Order passed on 20.9.1994 by Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, Civil Judge, Delhi is under challenge in this civil revision filed tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the said order learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint holding that the decree claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents in the suit regarding declaration and of permanent injunction against the plaintiffs' harassment by the defendant/ petitioner and also for restraining the defendant/petitioner from compelling the regular and permanent employee to resign from its employment and to join other defendants cannot be granted by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, thereforee, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.2. Facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 a trade union instituted a suit against the defendant/petitioner impleading three other defendants therein claiming the following reliefs :'(i) that a decree for declaration be p...

Sh. S.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)133; 104(2003)DLT116; 2003(67)DRJ709

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This Petition which has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation is concerned with the short supply of and adulteration in petrol and diesel. The further allegation is that the Petitioner was cheated by Respondent No. 5 who is engaged in selling petrol/diesel and in support of this allegation the Petitioner has set forth the instance of his Maruti 800 vehicle being filled with 31.1 litters of petrol when, as per his allegation, the fuel tank capacity is only 30 litters. This, the Petitioner alleges, clearly shows that there was a short supply of fuel to him although he was charged for 31.1 litters of petrol vide Receipt No. 0094 dated 16.5.2000. Inter alia, on the basis of this incident the Petitioner has sought that a writ of Mandamus be issued commanding the Respondent No. 1 to have a probe into the question of short and adulterated supply of petrol and diesel to the general public. The Petitioner has also sought a direction for the closure of the Res...

Saket Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT919TriDel

1. During the period of dispute (1-11-97 to 31-3-98), the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots which were chargeable to duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act and other Alloy Steel Castings etc. (including Stainless Steel Castings and Alloy Steel Ingots), which were chargeable to duty at tariff rate in terms of Section 3 of the Act. During the said period, they paid central excise duty of Rs. 86,703/-from PLA and central excise duty of Rs. 3,13,145.95 from RG23A Part-II. The payment of duty of Rs. 86,703/- from PLA was based oh the Annual Capacity of Production of Non-Alloy Steel Ingots determined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The payment of duty of Rs. 3,13,145.95 from the Modvat account was on the other Alloy Steel Castings which were outside the scope of Section 3A and were chargeable to duty at tariff rates in terms of Section 3 of the Act. The appellants filed refund claim for the entire amount of Rs. 3,99,848...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Speedway Rubber Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT207TriDel

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tread Rubber Vulcanised and Un-vulcanised and were clearing the goods under the brand name of "Speedways Rubber Factory".A show cause notice was issued to the appellant of denying the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification on the ground that they were clearing the goods under the brand name of "Speedways". The Revenue filed the appeal and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The contention of the Revenue is that the two Trade Marks "Speedways" and "Speedways Rubber Factory" shared close resemblance and were identified with one and the same family and the same goods.Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification.4. The respondents produced photocopy of specimen brand name and, we find that both are different and distinct. In these...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]260ITR467(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-C (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that foreign tour expenditure of Rs. 47,316 was an allowable deduction ?'2. Briefly stated, the material facts, as emanating from the statement of the case, are that during the previous year ending on March 31, 1974, and relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the assessed, who is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacture of fans and sewing machines, had debited a sum of Rs. 94,632 as traveling expenses incurred by the company's chairman, Shri Charat Ram, and one of the executives, namely, Shri B. K. Ghai, on their travel to Europe and the USA. However, while computing its total income for the said assessment year, the ass...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chhabra Emporium

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)179; [2003]264ITR249(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated December 28, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in is No. 6468/Delhi of 1995 pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93, affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi. The Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the penalty levied on the assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Briefly stating the background, the facts are that a search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of Sudesh Chhabra, one of the partners of the respondent/assessed. During the course of this search, a diary was found and seized. In his statement, recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, the said Sudesh Chhabra stated that the diary reflected unaccounted transaction in respect of Chhabra Emporium, the respondent herein, Chhabra Trading Co., Chhabra Saree Sadan and Chhabra Silk and Sa...

Brig. D.S. Grewal and Another Vs. Okara Agro Industries Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. This order shall govern the disposal of the application dated 10.1.2003, filed on behalf of the complainants, for the restoration of the complaint dismissed on grounds of non-prosecution by this Commission vide order dated 12.8.2002. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, lie in a narrow compass. The complainants have filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and claiming a compensation of Rs. 18,44,000/- as detailed in para 13 of the complaint. 3. A notice of the complaint, as per statutory provisions, was directed to be issued to the opposite party and the office in compliance with the directions issued by this Commission had issued a notice to the opposite party per registered post which was received back unserved with the report of the postal authorities to ...

Surindra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT357TriDel

1. The issue raised in all the above Appeals is the same, therefore, it is advantageous to take them up together for consideration.Accordingly, the Appeals of Karam Steel Corporation and Dhiman Industries are also taken up after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit along with the Appeal of Surindra Steel Rolling Mills.2. The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products liable to central excise duty. The manufacture is taken up on job work basis for Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL). That the Authority supplies them the raw materials i.e. billets, blooms, slabs etc. from their stockyards and the appellants convert these semis into finished goods for sale. The appellants receive conversion charges for the conversion work carried out by them. The goods so manufactured by the appellants are sold by them on behalf of Steel Authority of India to various purchasers. The sale price of the goods is determined by the SAIL.While clearing the goods from the appellants' fac...