Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Rajvir Singh and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ404

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of one Mrs. Shanti Devi wife of appellant no.1 and mother of appellants 2 to 6 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. 2. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that gratuitous services rendered by the deceased to the family have been evaluated by the tribunal only at Rs. 660/- per month. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa and others Versus State of Bihar and others : (2001)IILLJ1559SC wherein it was observed that the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family even on a moderate estimate should be Rs. 3,000/- per month or Rs. 36,000/- per year. Relying upon this judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the gratuitous services rendered to the family by th...

D.D.A. Vs. Its Work Asst. Thru. D.D.A. Mazd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 108(2003)DLT731; 2004(2)SLJ362(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition, filed in this Court on 25th April, 2003 challenges the Award dated 21st September, 2000, passed in I.D.No.140/96. 2.The matter was first listed on 12th May, 2003 and the time was obtained to file an affidavit, explaining laches which was not filed on 14th July, 2003. Another opportunity was given on 14th July, 2003 and the matter was directed to be listed on 20th October, 2003. On 20th October, 2003, the affidavit was still not filed. Today, the matter is being listed and an affidavit-cum-application for condensation of delay has been handed over in Court today which is taken on record. Registry is directed to number and register the said application. 3.A perusal of the affidavit/application demonstrates that according to the petitioner, the matter was entrusted to Shri V.K. Rai, Advocate and Shri K.K. Malviya, panel lawyer to defend the case before the Labour Court where the matter proceeded ex-parte. However, significantly paragraph 5 of the sai...

Suraj Lamps and Industries Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT377TriDel

1. An amount of duty of Rs. 1,61,866/- and an amount of penalty of Rs. 7,500/- are involved in this case. The period involved is February and March, 1994. The lower authorities have denied Modvat credit to the aforesaid extent of over Rs. 1.6 lakh to the appellants on the ground that the relevant invoices had been issued by a non-existent firm. The finding of the authorities that M/s. Rama Steel Trader, the firm which had issued the relevant invoices, was not in existence has been recorded on the basis, of the fact that a notice issued to that party by the department had returned, with the postal endorsement that the addressee did not exist at the address shown on the postal article.Apparently, the above finding is not based on any independent evidence.Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery are, therefore, granted in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. The appeal is posted to 12-12-2003 for hearing....

Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(114)LC380Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Ferro Alloys falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA schedule. They had taken Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on certain items which were claimed to be capital goods, during July and August 1996. These items included Ladles, MS Channels and Energy Meters. In the show-cause notice issued on 2.5.1997, the department proposed to deny the Modvat credit on these three items to the appellants. In respect of Ladle, the ground for denial of credit was that declaration under Rule 57T had not been filed within time, while in respect of the remaining two items two grounds were stated viz. The show-cause notice was contested by the party before the original authority at the time of personal hearing. They maintained that the requirement of filing declaration under Rule 57T was only procedural and any non-fulfilment thereof was not enough reason to deny the Modvat credit. In respect of MS Channel and Energy Meter, the original authority held that the goods were elig...

Flora Continental Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Having examined the records and heard both sides, I find that this appeal itself needs to be finally disposed of. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The original authority had by order dated 28.12.2001, confirmed against the appellant a demand of duty of Rs. 33,603/- and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. The aggrieved party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). They also filed an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. This application was disposed of by Interim order dated 15.4.2002, whereby the appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 40,000/- within 30 days.The party did not deposit the amount within the said period but sought further time. They also did not deposit the amount within the extended time. The Commissioner (Appeals), on 12.3.2003, issued a registered notice to the appellants directing them to pr...

Dee Pharma Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT366TriDel

1. Both these appeals are on the same issue and therefore, are being taken up together for disposal.2. Both the appeals are filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed as time-barred.3. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the appellants. Appellants filed the appeals against the Adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dismissed their appeals as time-barred.5. The contention of the appellants is that the Adjudication order was passed on 31-10-2000 and was issued on 23-11-2000. The copy of the order was received by M/s. Dee Pharma Limited at their office address on 25-1-2001. The appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-4-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) issued notice of hearing for 21-2-2003 on the stay application. The appellants made a request for an adjournment. The Commissioner (Appeals) however adjourned the case...

Rama Nand Pandey and ors. Vs. Nisha Tiwari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC39; 2005ACJ1968; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)29; 108(2003)DLT239; 2003(71)DRJ454

S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the person who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle has further observed that since the accident was caused by a person who had only a 'learners license' in his favor it will be the obligation of the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle had a valid driving license duly issued by the Transport Authority in his favor on 19.4.1992, and the same was valid till April, 1995. It is submitted by him that the license was ...

Bala and ors. Vs. Moti Chand Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ1918; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)256; 107(2003)DLT643; 2003(71)DRJ573

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 dated October 15, 1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the application of the appellants for grant of compensation for the death of one Mr.Roop Chand husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.4 to 8 was dismissed on the ground that the appellants were not able to prove that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:4. The deceased Roop Chand on 13.8.1992 at about 4/5 p.m. in the evening was going on his bicycle to his house in Sector-49, NOIDA via the Kotla road when a three wheeler scooter came from the Patparganj side being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1 and hit the cycle from behind. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down on the road and received severe injuries and was im...

R.B. Sharma Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)338; 108(2003)DLT140; (2004)IILLJ605Del

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2002, in MCA No. 85/97, of the Senior Civil Judge, whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal arising out of the order of the trial Court, whereby an application under Rule 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC along with the main suit was allowed.2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Appellate Court are as under :'The brief facts of the case as made out in the plaint are that the plaintiff joined the defendant No. 1-Bank on 15-6-1979 as Technical Officer Grade-II in the basic scale of Rs. 500/- - Rs1330/-. On confirmation, the basic salary of the plaintiff was to be fixed at Rs. 620/-. Vide letter dated 11-6-1992 the salary of the plaintiff was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1200/- which was equivalent to the earlier basic pay of Rs. 620/-. However, vide letter dated 4-8-1992 the plaintiff was asked to pay back the arrearsas the letter dated 11-6-1992 was not properly issued. The pl...

Educate India Society Vs. All India Council for Technical Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)91; 108(2003)DLT274

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. Since the facts that are germane for deciding this Petition are not in controversy, learned counsel for the parties have consented to the final disposal of the Writ Petition itself. Arguments have been addressed in great detail. 3. The facts are that the Petitioner/Society had set up in the year 1996 a technical institute in the name and style of Institute of Technology and Management at Gurgaon, Haryana, as an unaided self-financed professional college. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) had approved its intake capacity of 160 students in respect of the academic year 1996-1997. Presently, the Society has the approval of the AICTE to admit 370 students for the academic year 2002-2005. It is contended by Mr. Uday Lalit, learned counsel for the Society that it had run into losses, ostensibly because the non-resident quota was not fully utilised. under the scheme established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P....