Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

P.R.J. Enterprises Vs. Rajpal Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The above mentioned 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 25.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 307/2001 entitled Shri Rajpal Singh v. M/s. P.R.J. Enterprises and Ors. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Rajpal Singh had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he had purchased one CNG Auto, bearing Registration No. 6394, make Bajaj Auto-Model-2000 on 30.10.2000 from the appellant. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that the respondent on 14.2.2001 had approached the workshop of the appellant for service purposes and when on 15.2.2001 he went to collect the said vehicle after service from the workshop of the appe...

Banta Singh Kartar Singh Iron and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC605

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Banta Singh Kartar Singh Iron and Steel Rolling Mills for condonation of delay of 1634 days in filing the Appeal.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants manufactured rolling products of iron and steel which attracted Central Excise duty under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act during the relevant period; that the Commissioner Central Excise provisionally determined the annual capacity of production under Order dated 27.3.98 which was made final by impugned Order dated 27.4.98; that the Applicants wrote a letter dated 8.9.98 to the Commissioner that their capacity had been determined without personal hearing and without appointing any technical Authority and requested to determine the annual capacity after extending the personal hearing; that the Assistant Commissioner issued show cause notice dated 30.10.98 demanding duty for the period April to June 1998; that the Commissioner also appointed technical Authority ...

Jitendra Pawar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT622TriDel

1. The above captioned 3 appeals have been directed against the common order-in-appeal dated 7-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original dated 18-4-2002 of the Additional Commissioner regarding confiscation of the gold biscuits and imposition of penalty, on the appellants.2. On 27-5-2000, Police officers of Kotwali Police Station, Bilaspur, made seizure of the gold from the premises of M/s. Jai Saraswati Refinery Works and from the possession of its proprietor Shri Jitendra Pawar (appellant No. 1). The gold recovered was, 1 gold biscuit bearing marking UBS (10 tolas), 2 gold biscuits bearing marking 'COMMERZ BANK (10 tolas), 3 gold biscuits bearing marking 'CREDIT SUISEE' (10 tolas), 2 gold biscuits with marking UBS (10 tolas), 2 gold rod/wire weighing 164.750 gms and 86.150 gms. 1 cut piece of gold weighing 26.420 gms. 1 gold lump bearing marking JSR and Lotus flower weighing 33 grms and 5 pieces of gold lump weighing 23.850 grms, as ...

Shri Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs. the Lokayukta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)669; 105(2003)DLT351; 2003(69)DRJ323

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner has raised an issue with respect to the powers and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short). It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the Lokayukta has initiated suo moto proceedings taking cognizance of L-2 vend opened at Hans Bhawan and after inquiry passed order dated 19.9.20002 directing Excise Department/Respondent No. 3 to issue order for cancellation of the said vend. Based thereon respondent No. 3 passed order dated 27.9.2002 cancelling this vend. It is in this context that powers of the Lokayukta to pass such an order is questioned. At this stage, brief facts of the case are noted.2. The petitioner is one of the co-owner of the property bearing No. Lower Ground Floor-1, Hans Bhawan, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. This building as is well-known is a commercial building. Vide public notice dated 13/14.2.1999 Delhi State Civil...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajeev Grinding Mills

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)84; [2005]279ITR86(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 {for short 'the Act') is directed against order, dt. 19th March, 2002, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, in ITA Nos. 1518/Del/1997 and 2611/Del/1997, pertaining to the asst. yr. 1993-94. The Mowing questions have been proposed as. substantial questions of law:'(a) Whether Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the trading addition of Rs. 1,03,12,267 made by the AO on account of sale of spices excessively claimed by the assessed as grinding loss ?(b) Whether Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition when the accounts maintained by the assessed did not reflect the true and correct profits ?(c) Whether Tribunal was correct in deleting the trading addition made by the AO on the basis of independent enquiry even when the assessed did not maintain any stock register or daily processing register ?(d) Whether, order of Tribunal was perverse in law and on facts when it did not consider the facts...

Ashwani Kumar Vs. Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board 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 8.10.2001, passed by District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1619/2000 Entitled Sh. Ashwani Kumar v. The Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Ashwani Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the appellant was residing at A-61, Vishnu Garden, Khyala Road, New Delhi for the last about 32 years and was a consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 376988/DL, installed in the above said premises. In the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum the grievance of the appellant, in nutshell, was about the non-rectification of the electricity bill, issued by the respondent in respect of the above s...

Jitender Kumar Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants India (icai)

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 4.1.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 192/2002 entitled - Jatinder Kumar v. The President, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Jatinder Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had appeared in an examination which was held in November, 1999 and was conducted by the respondent. It was stated that as per marks sheet made available to him in respect of the above said examination, he was declared to have failed in that examination as in paper-I (Group-I), the awarded marks were shown as 33 though the...

Rajinder Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

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 20.12.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in two Complaint Cases bearing Nos. 1863/1997 and 2112/1997, both entitled - Shri Rajinder Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Rajinder Kumar, an allottee of Flat No. K-29A, Saket, New Delhi, had filed two complaints (Complaint Case No. 1863/1997 for allotment of scooter garage and Case No. 2112/1997 for allotment of a servant quarter and a car garage) under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. 3. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there is no force in Complaint No. 2112/1997, filed by the appellant, for allotment of a servant quarter and a car ...

Association of Bopp Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT384TriDel

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing of appeal. It is submitted that delay has caused due to non-availability of Chief Executives of the Industries who are members of the Association which is the appellant, due to different reasons.Even though on principle it was decided to file the appeal the draft had to be approved by the Executive which could meet only on 20-11-2000. This was the reason for the delay.2. The application for condonation of delay is opposed by the respondent.3. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the application, we are convinced that the applicant has made out sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 20 days in filing of an appeal. We, therefore, allow the application....

Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC225

1. These are two applications, by M/s. Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd., Ahmedabad, for restoration of their appeals, which have been dismissed for non-prosecution, vide Final Order No. 909-910/2003-NB(B) dated 5.12.2003.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the default in appearance on 5.12.2003, had taken place on account of confusion and mis-understanding on the part of the applicants; that the default on their part may be condoned taking lenient view as the applicants are interested in pursuing their appeals; that the previous adjournments, in these appeals, may not be considered as factor against them because the previous adjournments were not on account of applicants' request; that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held in the case of Viral Laminates and Ors. v. CCE, 1998 (100) ELT 335 (Guj.) that the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the appeal in default for appearance.3. opposing the prayer, Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR, submitted that the appeals we...