Delhi Court November 2003 Judgments

Shri Ranjit Singh Vs. Mohd Ali Asraf and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)342; 108(2003)DLT627

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper which he submitted for the 14-Tilak Nagar legislative assembly constituency. The last date for filing nominations was 14.11.2003. The petitioner filed the nomination paper on that date. Scrutiny of nomination papers was done on 15.11.2003 and at the time of scrutiny the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer on the grounds mentioned in Part IV of the nomination paper itself. The order was passed on 15.11.2003 i.e. on that date itself. However certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 17.11.2003. Receipt of the certified copy on 17.11.2003 does not mean that between 15.11.2003 and 17.11.2003 the petitioner could be regarded as a candidate, his nomination paper had been rejected on 15.11.2003 itself and he was never in the fray of candidates. 2. In view of the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution this...

DeseIn Private Limited Vs. Industrial Tribunal Iii and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ365

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. By the impugned order dated 12th September 2002 the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the management/petitioner for staying the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2/workman under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the respondent by holding that Section 33 can not be said to be inapplicable merely because a plea was raised about the lack of competence of the original reference i.e. ID 27 of 1992.2. The main plea raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vinay Bhasin, is that Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was inapplicable on account of the plea of this invalidity of reference taken by the petitioner in the reply to the statement of claim filed by the workman in the Industrial Tribunal in the pending reference I.D. 27 of 1992. He has submitted that since as per his plea the reference made and pending was without jurisdiction and incompetent, the bar contemplate...

Ravi Kaul and anr. Vs. Hari Parshad and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ1729; 109(2004)DLT188; 2004(73)DRJ752

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellant No.2 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only point urged by learned counsel for the appellants is that (1) in place of the multiplier of 17 in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal has applied the multiplier of 15 and (2) the tribunal has wrongly deducted half the income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and the balance is taken as the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased. 3. I find merits in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. For a person who had died between the age of 30 to 35 years, the correct multiplier to be applied in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act is 17. The deceased was 34 years at the time of her unfortunate death and the tribunal, thereforee, ...

Shailender Kumar JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT510

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.CWP No. 4536/2003: Rule.1. The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the show-cause notice dated 13.7.2003 issued by the Consulate General of India, Dubai calling upon the petitioner to show cause why his passport should not be revoked under Section 10(3)(h) of the Passport Act, 1957. The only ground taken to challenge the notice is that on the date of issue of show-cause notice, the conditions precedent for revoking the passport under Section 10(3)(h) of the Act were not satisfied and consequently show cause could not be issued by the Consulate General of India, Dubai.2. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent that not only that non-bailable warrants had been issued for the arrest of the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code but the petitioner had also impersonated in Court to get stay of execution of the non-bailable warrants. Though these pleas have been taken in the counter affidavit as well as t...

Youngman Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC31

1. This is an appeal of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 23.4.03. The issue raised in this appeal is whether Acrylic Knitted Fabrics came into existence during the manufacture of mink blanket from acrylic yarn or not. The Department took the view that the acrylic fabrics came into existence during the manufacture of the mink acrylic blanket which were further captively consumed for the manufacture of mink acrylic blanket on the above basis duty was demanded. The assessee contended that its case is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shital Fibres Ltd. v. CCE, 2001 (129) ELT 489 and that the unfinished knitted fabrics during the process of manufacturing blanket has no marketability. It was also pointed out that the above decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2001 (133) ELT A90.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the above submission made on behalf of the assessee. He also referred to paragraph 15 of ...

Exide Industries Vs. Ministry of Finance, Designated

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. We heard Shri S.S. Shroff, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicant and Ld. Counsel Shri Anil K. Mishra on behalf of Designated Authority.2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the notification itself shows that the Anti-Dumping duty is imposed on all kinds of lead acid batteries falling under heading 8507 of the Customs Tariff orginating in or exported from People's Republic of china, People's Republic of Korea, People's Republic of Bangla Desh and Japan. Ld.Counsel further submits that in the light of the above, there is no justification in import being allowed without imposing anti-dumping duty merely for the reason that identical goods imported are declared as "Non-automotive and non-industrial".If the submissions made on behalf of the applicant are correct, it will be an issue relating to the misdeclaration. Under these circumstances, we do not find that any clarification/modification can be granted by this Tribunal. Remedy of the applicant is elsewhere. We, therefo...

Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC501

2. Both the original and first appellate authorities denied Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,32,897.55 to the appellants and imposed on them a penalty of equal amount. Hence this appeal.3. The above Modvat credit had been taken on the countervailing duty (CVD) paid on three consignments of inputs which the appellants had procured in a high sea sale transaction. The said goods were purchased by the appellants from M/s Hemant Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. and M/s Supreme Industries Ltd. The credit of CV duty was taken by the appellants on the strength of three triplicate Bills of Entry, two of them standing in the name of M/s Supreme Industries and the other in the name of Hemant Plastics Ltd. 4. A show-cause notice was issued by the Department proposing to disallow the credit to the appellants on the ground that the Bills of Entry did not carry the importers' declaration that they did not intend to avail Modvat credit of the CV duty under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in ...

Suraj Prakash Vs. Chief Election Commissioner of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ328

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that his nomination papers for the 67-Rajender Nagar Assembly Constituency, Delhi were not received by the Returning Officer on 14.11.2003. The petitioner has alleged that he had reached the office of Returning Officer for the said Constituency on 14.11.2003 at 2.30 p.m. with complete set of papers Along with complete nomination form. According to the petitioner, even the particulars of the papers were verified by the office clerk of the Returning Officer. However, as some other candidate was already before the Returning Officer and there was a crowd of persons Along with that candidate, the petitioner was not allowed to enter the office, as a result of which the petitioner was unable to present his nomination papers within time, i.e., 3.00 p.m. on 14.11.2003 which was the last date for filing of nomination papers. Accordingly, his nomination papers could not be filed on account of these circumstances. In this petition, the pe...

Bhim Raj Sharma Vs. Ram Chander

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC127; 108(2003)DLT691

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. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the age of the deceased was 37 years at the time of the death and though in terms of the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal was required to apply the multiplier of 16 to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased. The tribunal has applied a multiplier of 14.4. There are merits in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Unless there are special reason to deviate, the courts and the tribunals are required to apply the multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family of the deceased. Since the deceased was 37 years of age, in my opinion, the correct multiplier to be applied in this case w...

A.S. Mittal Vs. P.O., Debt Recovery Tribunal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]121CompCas309(Delhi); 2004(72)DRJ440

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal vide its order dated 4th May, 1999 on an application moved by the respondent No.2 to the effect that the pass-port of the petitioner be impounded and he be directed not to leave country without prior permission of the Tribunal as the applicants seriously apprehend that in view of the recovery proceedings filed by various creditors including the present one the petitioner herein may siphon off the funds at their disposal and leave the country without clearing the outstanding dues. The Tribunal by an ex parte order restrained the petitioner from leaving the country without permission of the Tribunal while adjourned the matter on the question of impounding of passport to be decided after hearing parties. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned authorities at the airport for information and necessary action.2. It is submitte...