Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

South West Distribution Co. Ltd. (Bses) Vs. Inder Pal Thapar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi dated 20.6.2002, passed in Complaint Case No. 918/2001 - entitled Shri Inder Pal Thapar v. Xen Enforcement (West), Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum praying therein that the FAE bill for the amount of Rs. 18,859/- raised against the connection bearing K. No. PB 012-1280144/T 525/DL on the basis of the Inspection Report dated 2.9.2000 be quashed and the said amount be refunded to the respondent together with interest and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. 3. The stand of the appellant before the District Forum was that on the basis of the joint inspection carried out by the staff of the appellant on 2.9.2000 it was found that both the half seals of the meter were tampered with and the ...

Medicamen Biotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT765TriDel

1. This appeal has been, directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 12-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,08,500/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-, on the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants availed the Modvat credit of the above said amount on 30-6-99 in respect of the capital goods under Rule 57Q without any supporting duty paying documents. This credit had been disallowed to them on the ground that they did not seek any permission from the competent authority. However, the plea taken up by the appellants was that they earlier took the credit in September, 98 of this amount on the strength of 3 invoices, but they debited the credit on 19-2-99 on the ground that it was not admissible to them. But later on, they suo motu re-credited this amount in RG 23C Part-II, and as such could not be disallowed to them.3. The only issue involved i...

Rochi Ram and Sons, Shri Vinod Arora Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC112

1. The issue involved in these 3 appeals arising out of a common order is whether Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs is available to M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons.2. Shri C. Harishanker, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellant firm manufacture wrist watches/wrist watch cases and avail of Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that wrist watches of M.R.P.below Rs. 500 per piece were made wholly exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000; that the inputs are same whether the watches are of M.R.P. value less than Rs. 500 or more than Rs. 500; that as the appellants were clearing wrist watches bearing M.R.P. less than Rs. 500 per piece without payment of duty they were reversing, at the time of clearance, CEN VAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs which had gone into the manufacture of exempted watches; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order, has demanded CENVAT Credit availed of on inputs used in the manufac...

Rochi Ram and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT96TriDel

1. The issue involved in these 3 appeals arising out of a common order is whether Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs is available to M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons.2. Shri C. Harishanker, learned Advpcate, submitted that the appellant-firm manufacture wrist watches/wrist watch cases and avail of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that wrist watches of M.R.P. below Rs. 500/- per piece were made wholly exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000; that the inputs are same whether the watches are of M.R.P. value less than Rs. 500/- or more than Rs. 500/-; that as the appellants were clearing wrist watches bearing M.R.P. less than Rs. 500/- per piece without payment of duty they were reversing, at the time of clearance, Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs which had gone into the manufacture of exempted watches; that the Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order, has demanded Cenvat credit availed of on inputs used in ...

Kirit Prabhudas Fifadra Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT446TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 29-4-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs had ordered confiscation of the goods (ball bearings) under Section 112 of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 11-4-2001, truck bearing No.HR-46-8137 belonging to Bombay Delhi Carrier (Regd.), Mumbai was intercepted by the officers of the customs preventive while parked in the parking area of Old Delhi Railway Station. On enquiry, the truck driver Manjeet Slingh disclosed that the goods loaded in the truck were ball bearings, toys, hardware items, deodorants, etc, but he could not produce any document regarding the legal acquisition of the same. On conducting search of the truck, 621 ball bearings pieces (No. 6307 K.G.) and 5 ball bearings (bearing No. 22340 CA Brand DYZV) belonging to ...

Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)BC81

1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') in O.A. 94/2001 filed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) for the recovery of Rs. 1,37,97,204/- with subsequent interest and costs.2. On 25.4.2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed issue of show-cause notices on the O.A. to the defendants and also granted an ad interim ex pane injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant and its Directors from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged immovable properties of the 1st defendant company with all buildings, structures, plants and machinery.3. The 1st respondent-Bank m(SIC)ed an application and LA. 296/2001 in September, 2000, stating, among other things, that consortium loan granted to the appellant/1st defendant was Rs....

Motia Rani and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)BC170

1. The appellants herein were defendants 5, 2 and 6 respectively in O.A. 836/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT). The O.A. was originally a civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and was subsequently transferred to the DRT after the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force. The suit was filed by New Bank of India which has subsequently amalgamated with the respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank').2. On 17.7.1997, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order against the appellants/defendants and others. The appellants/defendants filed an application on 28.8.2000 before the DRT for setting aside the ex parte final order. This application was considered and dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT holding that the said application was filed beyond the period of limitation, b...

Commander, S.P. Dutt Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, M ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)6; 104(2003)DLT49; 2003(3)SLJ453(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B.2. Mr. K. B. S. Rajan counsel for the petitioner has contended that after the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the petitioner has been denied the fixation of pay while taking into consideration the spirit of the integrated broad band pay scale introduced for the first time in the armed forces w. e. f. 1.1.86. The first argument was that denial of increment of four years' service when he was stagnating at the maximum of Rs. 1900/- in the pre revised scale was not correct and same was not in the spirit of integrated broad band pay scale as introduced and recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that provision of leave encashment was made available w. e. f. 1.1.86 to all the civilians as well as para military personnel and denial of the same uniformly to the officers of the armed forces was arbitrary and illegal. He contended grant of leave encashment from 30.12.98 to the officer...

C.J. International Hotels Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)733; 2004(1)CTLJ318(Del); 105(2003)DLT545; 2003(71)DRJ705

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18th May, 2001 disposing of is No. 3075/2000, plaintiff/appellant has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order appellant has been directed to pay license fee @ 21 % of its gross turnover. 2. In brief, facts relevant for the determination of the present appeal may be noted. The respondent/NDMC, being the owner of a parcel of land at Windsor Place, Janpath, invited offers from parties to have the land licensed to them on certain terms and conditions. The site was to be used for construction of a Five Star Hotel. Various offers were received. One of the offer received was from M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. This was accepted by the respondent. The offer was that the licensee offered to pay a license fee of 23% of the gross turnover or Rs. 2.68 crores per annum, which ever was higher. This offer of 23% of the gross turnover was subsequently reduced to 21% of the gross turnover. 3. A license agreement dated 16.4.1981 was executed...

D.C. Raizada Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)589; AIR2003Delhi200; 105(2003)DLT737; 2003(69)DRJ26

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, I would be deciding is 2390/98, being an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the petitioner in this case, seeking a transfer of Suit No. 389/97, titled Mahesh Kumar Raizada v. State and others, pending before the District Judge. The second application to be decided by this common judgment is is 5613/98, filed by the respondent in the present case, seeking transfer of the present probate petition No. 60/96 to the District Court to be tried along with Section No. 389/97. Respondent has also moved another application bearing No. 9769/2002 for an early decision of IA. 5613/ 98.2. The facts giving rise to these applications may be briefly noted ;--Petitioner, D. C. Raizada, filed the present probate petition No. 60/96, seeking a probate in respect of registered Will dated 13-12-1995, said to be executed by testator late Sh. L. P.Raizada. Service is complete and as per Mr. Rishikesh, advocate for the petitio...