Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

Darshan Lal JaIn Vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.

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 9.1.2003, passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/654/2001 entitled Shri Darshan Lal Jain v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly, stated, are that the appellant Shri Darshan Lal Jain had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had booked two vehicles for his ailing wife who was bed ridden and had made payment for the same to the respondent. It was stated that later on he advised the respondent that order for one vehicle may be cancelled and the amount be refunded to him. It was stated that later on again he wrote to the respondent to refund the amount of both the vehicles as his ailing wife, for whom he had booked the vehicles had expired in between. T...

Anand Auto Corporation (India) Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ano ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant Messrs. Anand Auto Corporation (India), through its attorney, Shri Tarlok Singh Anand have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that the complainant is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. It is stated that Shri Tarlok Singh Anand has been appointed as attorney of the complainant to sign, verify and institute the present complaint and to pursue the same on behalf of the complainant before this Commission. It is stated that the complainant is having an account with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (opposite party No. 2). It is stated that the complainant was availing of credit facility from opposite party No. 2 (for short O.P. No. 2) against the pledge of the stock in trade. It is stated that as per the requirements of O.P. No. 2 the complainant had taken a policy in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from O.P. No. 1...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Frick India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT992TriDel

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) classifying liquid level alarm under Heading 9032.89 of the Customs Tariff.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 8531.80 of the Customs Tariff.4. The goods in question control the level of the liquid refrigerant in the system with the help of a bulb known as thermal element which is inserted in the vessel and where the liquid is controlled beyond the set permissible limit. The liquid level regulator (goods in question) sends a signal to the system through solenoid valve which cuts off the supply of the refrigerant thereby tripping the compressor. It is admitted by the Revenue that this control system does not have any visual/audible alarm.5. We find that sub-heading 8531.80 of the Customs Tariff covers the goods as other apparatus for electric sound or visual signalling apparatus for example, bells, sirens, indicator panels, burglar or fire...

Kamineni Hospitals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT574TriDel

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Kamineni Hospitals Ltd. and Dr. K. Shashidhar, Managing Director, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 is available in respect of equipments imported by them.2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant had imported Mach Double Halogen Operating Lamp, CIBA. Corning 550 Express Random Access Chemistry Analyser and Screening system + cap-piereer fully 500 Express Random Automated Interpretative 5 Part Differential Blood Cell Counter with accessories and availed the exemption from payment of Import duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus.; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order, has confiscated medical equipment and accessories with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 40, 140,223/-, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a penalty equivalent to amount of duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. One lakh on Dr. ...

KemfIn Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC701

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Ms. Kemfin Chemicals (P) Ltd. is whether the goods manufactured by them are bearing brand name of another person making them ineligible for the benefit of SSI Notification.2. Shri B.L. Narisimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, registered SSI Unit, arc manufacturing since 1987 different varieties and grades of pickling preparations for metal surface, both in the form of powder and liquid; that they have their name as brand name alongwith logo which are used by them in their sign board, visiting cards, letter-head, etc. also; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has disallowed the benefit of Notification No. 1 /93-CE dated 28.2.93 and confirmed the demand of duty and imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the ground that they were using the brand name of Kemfin Industries. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants are not using the brand name of another person; that Kemfin is not registered ...

Rathi Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT775TriDel

1. In this appeal, M/s. Rathi Industries Ltd. are only challenging penalty imposed on them by the Commissioner under Rule 96ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Hot Rolled products of Non-alloy steel which were chargeable to duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act w.e.f. 1-9-97; that the Appellants opted for payment of duty on lump sum basis under Rule 96ZP(3); that the Commissioner, Central Excise, fixed their Annual Capacity of Production as 52,467 M.T. w.e.f. 1-9-97 on 31-3-98; that consequent to change in parameters the Commissioner re-fixed the Annual Capacity of Production on 16-2-1999 as 38,429.99 M.T. w.e.f. 1-9-1998; that as they did not pay duty from December, 1999 to March, 2000 they were asked by the Suptd. Central Excise to deposit the duty amounting to Rs. 23,28,128/- under letter dated 9-5-2000 and 21-7-2000; that they deposited the said duty by debiting Cenvat credit amount...

Sterling Computers Limited Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)BC97

1. Corporation Bank (hereinbefore referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Bank') filed Suit No. 2731/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against (1) M/s. United Data Base (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UDP'); (2) M/s. United India Periodicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIP')"; (3) T.P.Ahmed Ali; (4) M/s. Sterling Computers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Sterling Computers); (5) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the MTNL'); (6) Central Bank of India; (7) Bank of Baroda; and (8) Bank of India. The suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 7,53,09,020.83 with interest @ 21% per annum, out of which the liability of the appellant-Sterling Computers was limited to Rs. 4,09,76,270/- with interest as mentioned above. 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 transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafte...

Dr. Vijendra Singh Vs. Gemsons International and Another

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 13.12.2002, passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 441/2002entitled Dr. Vijendra Singh v. M/s. Gemsons International and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Dr. Vijendra Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant has purchased two Air-conditioners from respondent No. 1 on 10.5.2001 with a warranty of 12 months in respect of all the parts and for 60 months in respect of the compressors in the Air-conditioners. 3. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that the two air-conditioners, purchased by him, were installed on 11.5.2001 for which the appellant had paid another sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respo...

United Children Movements (Regd.) Vs. Post Master

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 3.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1613/2001 entitled United Children Movements (Regd.) v. The Post Master, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he had sent a copy of the biography of Shri K.R. Narayanan by VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra vide receipt No. KB/VP-196/2001 dated 28.4.2000 through Karol Bagh Post Office, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant was to receive Rs. 800/-, the price of that book sent by him through VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra which had not been received by him from ...

Shikha Singla and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)319; 106(2003)DLT452

K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioners/ accused seek quashment of complaint Case No. 568/98 pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. 2. Copy of complaint is placed at pages 22 to 38 on the file. M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd./respondent No. 2 herein is the complainant while Ms. Shikha Singla, Rishab Singla and Sadhu Ram Singla, petitioners 1 to 3 are accused Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. M/s. Rom Industries Ltd., respondent No. 3 has been arrayed as accused No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is a body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business, amongst others, of financing and leasing. At the request of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and on M/s. Ishank Credit and Finance Ltd. and Dheeraj Kumar, agreeing to stand as guarantors for accused No. 1, the complainant-company sanctioned Bill discounting facility of Rs. 51,25,683/- to accused No. 1 for a period of 90 days at the interest of 28...