Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Manju Chandra Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)447; 104(2003)DLT508; 2003(70)DRJ353; 2003(3)SLJ478(Delhi)

S.K. Mahajan, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.2. Petitioner was Reader in Daulat Ram College. Her services were terminated on 23.12.1997 for her remaining absent without leave. She filed an appeal under Clause 9 (I) of the Annexure to Ordinance XII of the Ordinances of the University. Under Clause 9(1) any dispute arising in connection with the termination of the services of the teacher, except when on probation, by the Governing Body shall be referred to the arbitration of an Appeal Committee of three independent persons appointed by the Chancellor, who shall have power to enquire into all the facts of the case and to interpret the terms of the agreement, and their decision shall be final and binding on both the parties. In terms of the aforesaid clause, the Appeal Committee shall give its final decision within a reasonable time. On receipt of this appeal, the Chancellor constituted a Committee of three independent per...

JaIn Refractory Erectors Vs. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)417; 2003(3)ARBLR256(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT469; 2003(2)RAJ456

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. An agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 for the works listed there. Appellant was awarded the work of 'erection of refractory materials at Akaltara Cement Project' at Bilaspur (M.P.).2. On 15.12.1980, the work under the contract was executed and completed. The final bill was raised by the appellant. The bill contained payments for certain extra works, alleged to have been executed by the appellant.3. The contract between the parties contained and arbitration clause being Clause No. 24. The same reads as under:Clause 24: 'In case of any dispute or difference arising between the parties of matters touching or the construction, meaning, operation or effect thereof the terms of the contract or with regard to working of the contract or breach thereof, the accredited representative from both sides shall consult each other and endeavor to settle the same. In case such settlement cannot be reached, the same shall be settled by a three me...

Mrs. Mohinder Kaur Vs. G.M. Cosmetics and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT946; 2003(69)DRJ487; 2003(27)PTC30(Del); 2003(2)RAJ407

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Plaintiff claims to be proprietor and user of trade mark VI- JOHN in respect of cosmetics, bleaching preparations, perfumery, polishing soap, Hair lotions and dentifrices etc. Though she has been using this trade mark since 1961 but got it registered on 27.3.1986 under No. 451633 in class 3. For the purpose of packing the aforesaid articles, the plaintiff claims to have adopted artistic cartons & tube having unique/original artistic get up, colour combination, lay out and arrangement. These were conceived and designed and created by Mr. Anil Shrivastav for M/s. Divya Arts who is an artist, some time in the year 1985 for and on behalf of plaintiff for valuable consideration. The specimen of the carton is Annexure A and the specimen of the tube and shaving cream is Annexure B. The distinguishing features of the carton and the artistic design, lay out and colour combination are as under:-(i) There is a combination of Blue and White colour and strip in Grey colour; (ii) ...

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Sharma Vs. Dri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(2)Crimes426; 2003(68)DRJ79; 2003(1)JCC536

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. Petitioner seeks bail in a case under Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropte Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) 4.740 Kgms of heroine was seized from the co-accused Satpal Juneja on 9th October, 2001 at the IGI airport. The same was concealed in the specially made cavities in the ten air of ladies sandals which were found in part of his luggage. He was to travel from New Delhi to Jewis. In the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act co-accused Satpal Juneja named the petitioner namely Vikas Kumar is the person who supplied the said contraband to him. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded on 8th & 9th March, 2002 wherein he admitted his involvement In the said deal. Such confessional statements made before the officers of NCB or DPI are not hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Such officers are not police officers. thereforee, statement made before th...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishwanath Bansal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 27.3.2002, passed by District Forum-III Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1649/2000 - entitled Shri Vishwanath Bansal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Vishwanath Bansal had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had taken a Mediclaim Insurance Policy from the respondent jointly in his own name and in the name of his wife Smt. Laxmi Bansal. It is stated that the above said Mediclaim Policy, taken by the respondent and his wife jointly, was being renewed periodically after paying the requisite premium. It was stated that during the year 1996-97 the respondent developed renal problem and in the course of...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Narmada Sugar Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT362TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 10/13-5-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and allowed Modvat credit to the respondents in respect of the capital goods, detailed in the show cause notice.2. The respondents availed Modvat credit of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 57Q of the Rules on the structural beams in April, 1994 and they were served with show cause notice for disallowing the Modvat credit on the ground that they were used for making platform. The respondents contested the correctness of the show cause notice by alleging that platform had been used by them for installation of the machinery meant for production of the final product and as such, the structures used in the construction of the platform were eligible for Modvat credit. The adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the goods were used for the construction of the platform which is civil structu...

Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT579TriDel

1. In these two appeals, filed by Smt. Anju Devi and Shree Sanatan Dev Goswami, the common issue involved is whether the appeals filed by them against Order-in-Original No. 75/A & R/VS/97, dated 3-10-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs are maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a Tata Mobile Van No. MP 09D 8093 on 30-8-1991 at Shahjahanpur Police Post; that the search of the said Van resulted in the recovery and seizure of 581 slabs of silver weighing 702.780 kgs. and valued at Rs. 47,08,626/- from five specially built secret cavities; that Rajendra Kumar, driver, in his statement dated 31-8-91 deposed that one Kanchan Aggarwal of Mathura appointed him as his driver; that Kanchan Aggarwal purchased the said Mobile Van which was registered in the name of one Manoj Kumar which was later on transferred in the name of Dinesh Aggarwal of Indore; that one Dinesh Kumar ...

Guljag Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC471Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Modvat Credit of Rs. 7,71,311.00 was [not] allowed on the ground that the capital goods, manufactured by the appellants, are not excisable as these are permanently attached to the earth.3. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants manufactured sulphur melter with coils in their factory and, thereafter, manufactured melter was installed in the tank. Appellants paid duty on sulphur melter with coils and availed the benefit of credit as capital goods. The credit was denied only on the ground that sulphur melter is permanently attached to the earth, therefore, is not excisable. The contention of the appellants is also that the appellants availed the benefit of credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of melter and revenue is disputing this credit. The contention of the appellants is that the revenue authorities wrongly came to the conclusion that the m...

Atul Aluminium Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT661TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 2-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has modified the order-in-original only in respect of penalty, but upheld the same regarding confiscation of the goods, duty and penalty on the appellants.2. On 25-2-92, the Central Excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants and found that the goods were being loaded by the appellants in a tempo parked in front of the gate of the factory. On enquiry, Shri Deepak Kumar, representative of the appellants who was supervising the loading at that time, revealed that the loaded goods were PVC compound. But no GP-I at that time in respect of those goods was prepared. Thereafter, physical stock verification was carried out and 8,780 kgs of PVC compound (including 3,600 kgs loaded in the tempo) valued at Rs. 3,08,160/- involving excise duty of Rs. 86,011.20, was found in excess of the recorded stock. Besides this, 14,335.6 kgs of PVC resin...

P.L. Goyal and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)BC142

1. The appellants are defendants 3 and 4 in O.A. 1053/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') filed by the 1st respondent-Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') against the appellants and others for the recovery. By order dated 14.5.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the request of the appellants to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish them the copies of the documents produced by the respondent-Bank. However, on the request for permitting the inspection of these documents, the learned Presiding Officer directed that the appellants may apply before the Registry for the said purpose.The appellants/defendants filed an application for review of this order, and that was also dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 9.8.2002. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal for setting aside the above said orders and for direction to th...