Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC191

1. In this appeal which has been filed against the impugned or-der-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have questioned their duty liability as well as imposition of penalty of equal amount on them. Shri Jasbir Singh, who has been authorised to appear vide letter dated 13-10-2003, has stated that there was no shortage of the goods and as such neither duty nor penalty could be confirmed against the appellants.2. I have gone through the record and in my view, his argument cannot be accepted. The bare perusal of the adjudication order as well as the impugned order-in-appeal shows that on conducting physical verification of the finished goods and raw materials lying in the factory premises on 10-2-99, the Anti Evasion Officers of Central Excise found shortage of uncoated semi Kraft paper involving duty of Rs. 62,700/- and cess of Rs. 1,570/-, than what was recorded in the statutory record. This shortage was even admitted by Shri R.S. Saini, Managing Director of t...

Sharat Chander Khandelwal and Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC215

1. 1st respondent-Bank, Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the Original Application against (1) M/s. Damask International, (2) Mrs. Kiran Dua and (3) Mr. Surinder Kumar for the recovery of the money due to it. The respondent-Bank alleged that the 3rd defendant-Surinder Kumar had equitably mortgaged 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranhola, and prayed (among others) for an order for the sale of this property.2. In pursuance of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), the learned Recovery Officer ordered the attachment of mortgaged property by his order dated 30.4.2001. The appellants who are third parties, filed their objections before the learned Recovery Officer urging that they have purchased the land measuring 1015 square yards in Khasra No.25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranho...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. J.N. Constructions

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)268; 2003(3)ARBLR478(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT772; 2004(72)DRJ158; 2004(1)RAJ104

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The respondent was awarded a work contract by the appellant for construction of an office building at Chandigarh. The work was to be carried out in accordance with terms and conditions set out in an agreement executed between the parties. The work could not be completed within the stipulated time schedule and there was some delay in this respect. The work was eventually completed on 31st March, 1995. Disputes arose between the parties which necessitated invocation of arbitration clause by the respondent seeking adjudication of the disputes/claims raised by it, by a reference to arbitration. Failure on the part of the concerned department of the appellant to refer the disputes for arbitration, made the respondent to approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 20 of the for appointment of an arbitrator and reference of disputes, as raised by it, to such arbitrator for adjudication thereon. It appears that barring Claim No. 13.13 (h) all other claims raise...

Bal Sahyog Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)608; 107(2003)DLT373

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents evidenced by their letter dated 09.04.2001 read with letters dated 18.06.2001 and 13.12.2002, whereby the respondents have refused to renew the lease of the petitioner society. The petitioner is a society which was formed in 1954 with the object of rehabilitating destitute children. Its activities centre around providing service and welfare to the needy and poor by conducting welfare and rehabilitation activities, including running of contract clubs, hobby centres, vocational training courses, homes and schools for socially and economically handicapped children, etc. In 1957, the petitioner society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner was located at the premises which it occupies even today in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The said premises were leased out to the petitioner by a Lease Deed executed on 11.08.1966 on behalf of ...

Veena Kumari and ors. Vs. Jasbir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC90; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)558

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation for the death of one Mr.Dharam Veer husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2 to 4 was dismissed on the ground that the appellants were not able to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It was held that as the bus overturned because of the driver suddenly applying brakes to avoid accident with a two wheeler scooter, which had suddenly come in front of the bus, the driver could not be said to have been driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that besides the fact that there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the accident was caused d...

Premlata Bhatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)186; 108(2003)DLT346

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The questions that arise for consideration in this case, inter alia, are:- (a) whether the petitioner, a licensee in the premises in question, can be said to have permitted the premises or any part thereof for being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever? (b) Whether a company formed by the petitioner herself and wherein she held virtually the entire share-holding would be covered under the expression 'any other person'? These questions arise for determination in the context of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). 2. The petitioner submits that she is not an 'unauthorized occupant' and, thereforee, the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer on 16.10.1990 under Section 5 of the said Act as well as the appellate judgment dated 22.7.1992 of the Additional District Judge confirming the order need to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner has also sou...

Nijjer Agro Foods Limited and ors. Vs. Shri Nasib Chand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)327; 2004CriLJ529; 2003(3)JCC304

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for production of tomato crop in 1000 acres, 500 acres at Central State Farms Suratgarh and 500 acres at Central State Farm, Ladhowal on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The relevant terms and conditions of payment are as under:-Terms of Payment9. One week before lifting the tomato produce from the field. Second party shall provide Bank guarantee/advance post dated cheques of 1st June to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs, 30th June to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs and balance of 15th July. The collection charges of the cheques shall be borne by the second party. In case the demand draft for the equivalent value are handed over before these dates, the advance cheques shall be returned by the first party. In case the payment are not made by the stipulated date, i.e. 1st June, 30th June and 15th July, the Corporation will be free to invoke the Bank guarantee in case the guarantee is given or the adv...

Sukhdev Singh and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC710; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)555; 107(2003)DLT590

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. The matter being short and since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and disposed of by this order.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the claim petitions filed by the appellant for compensation for the death of his wife and son in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant had not been able to prove that the offending bus was involved in the accident. A few facts relevant for deciding these appeals are:-On 27.2.1994, the appellant Along with his wife and son was going on a two wheeler scooter and when he reached on the road behind DTC Depot, Shahadra-II at about 10.30PM a DTC bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from inside the depot and hit the scooter from front as a ...

Madan Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT370; 2004(74)DRJ429

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.C.W. No. 2558/2003:1. In my view the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in N.R. Choudhary v. Ministry of Human Resource, : 103(2003)DLT389 . Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to draw the distinction between the said judgment and the facts of the present case inasmuch as unlike the petitioner before the Division Bench, the present petitioners are the wards of CISF employees. Keeping in view the gravamen of the judgment and the fact that it has been specifically observed that a distinction can be drawn between wards of NTPC employees and other persons. I do not think that it would make any material difference whether the non-NTPC employees are from another organisation or are civilians. It has been stated by Mr. Taneja, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NTPC that Sh. N.R. Choudhary is a Central Government employee. All the petitioners are thus of like status and standing.2. The other contention is that the Hon'ble Di...

Sri Ram Saini Vs. Surabhi Forests (i) Limited and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 21.7.2003 and subsequent order dated 29.8.2003 passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 372/2002 - entitled Shri Sri Ram Saini v. Surabhi Forests (I) Limited and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition, lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, Shri Sri Ram Saini, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum against the respondents. The learned District Forum vide order dated 21.7.2003, being also impugned in the present proceedings, had closed the evidence of the petitioner/complainant. Thereafter the petitioner/complainant had filed an application for the recall/review of order dated 21.7.2003. That application has been rejected by the learned District Forum vide order dated 29.8.2003 on the ground that...