Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

Krishan Pal and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ276

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. These Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.1998 of the learned Additional Ses'sions Judge in Sessions Case No. 84/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant Krishan Pal guilty under Sections 366 and 376, IPC and appellant Som Pal guilty under Section 366 and vide a separate order dated 17.8.1998 sentenced the appellant Krishan Pal to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four eight months. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months. Appellant Som Pal sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for four months.2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset states that he is ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT450TriDel

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.235-CE/MRT/2002, dated 29-7-2002, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad, has set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers (P) Limited under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondents availed of small scale exemption during Financial Year, 2000-01 and in the month of April and May, 2001 though their value of clearance had exceeded Rs. 3 crore during the preceding Financial Years; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 37/ADC/CMC/2001, dated 21-9-2001 has imposed a penalty equivalent to amount of duty under Rule 173Q on the ground that they were aware of crossing of limit of Rs. 3 crore and under Rule 173F, they were required to assess duty and to pay the same before removal of the excisable goods; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order, however, has set aside the penalty on the ground th...

Navyug Processors (P) Ltd., Shri Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC290

1. These are 5 appeals against common Order-in-Original No.6/Commr./2002 dated 28.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that a show cause notice dated 14.8.2001 was issued to the Appellants after conducting search of the factory premises and investigation, that the Appellant company had immediately filed a reply dated 30.8.2001 fro the show cause notice; that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner in gross violation of principle of natural justice that this is apparent from Para 21 of the impugned Order itself; that it is mentioned in the said para that personal hearing was fixed on 15.1.2002 which was adjourned to 4.2.2002, which again was adjourned to 11.2.2002; that the personal hearing was attended by Shri Dhaval Shah, learned Advocate, on behalf of the appellants wherein he waived the cross objection of all the persons as also any further hearing in the matter and agreed to submit final submis...

Sh. Dinesh Bhakko and anr. Vs. Andhra Bank and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC231

1. The appellants are defendants 2 and 1 respectively in O.A. 129/96 filed by the 1st respondcnt-Andhra Bank (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') against the appellants and the 2nd respondent herein. The appellants filed their interlocutory applications, namely I.A. 1/2000 for taking an additional affidavit by way of evidence; I.A. 2/2000 for taking cognizance of the counter-claim made by the defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement, and to allow them to lead evidence; and I.A. 3/2000 for summoning Mr. Suresh, the then Credit Manager and Mr. Varaprasad, the then Foreign Exchange Officer of the respondent-Bank for examination as witnesses in order to establish their counter-claim and their defence. All these three applications were disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his common order dated 24.1.2002.I. A. 1/2000 was allowed, and the additional affidavit filed was taken...

Mks Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Svc Superchem Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR170(Delhi); 2003(68)DRJ18

R.C. Jain, J. 1. The above named petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short the 'Act') seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Agreement for settling the disputes between the parties which are referred to as claims in the petition.2. The petition has been made with the averments that the petitioner-company had entered into an agreement dated 15.3.94 for certain work to be executed by the petitioner for the respondent. The said agreement was governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Bid Document DCE:2498-FC.V5-404, in turn containing an Arbitration Agreement in Clause 23. After the execution of the work, disputes and differences arose between the parties. By means of a communication dated 12.4.2001, the petitioner called upon the respondent to invoke the said Arbitration Agreement and to agree to the appointment of a sole Arbitrator out of the three names mentioned in...

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Dr. R.N. JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)289; III(2003)BC246; 105(2003)DLT81; 2003(70)DRJ86; [2003]45SCL26(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this application under Order VI Rule 17CPC, plaintiff seeks impleadment of defendant No. 3 in the suit filed under xxxvII CPC. The amendment sought have been detailed in para 6 of the application. The amendments give the reasons for not seeking any relief against defendant No. 3 company, which was having a reference pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( for short 'BIFR) under Sections 16 and 17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA'). Reply to the said application has also been filed. The application also sets out the consequential amendments required for disclosing the cause of action against defendant No. 3. 2. It is not necessary for me to go into the details and contents of the amendments sought since the defendants' objection as to amendment not being permitted, are on account of the plaintiff's alleged failure to seek and obtain permission for institution of the suit against defen...

Hira Lal and Son (Export) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]127CompCas904(Delhi); 2005(30)PTC431(Del); [2005]64SCL385(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (for short the Act'), is aggrieved by incorporation of the respondent No. 4 company on the ground that the respondent No. 4 company is allowed to be incorporated with similar name as that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner company is Hira Lal & Sons (Export) Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated in the year 1973. The respondent No. 4 was allowed to be incorporated with the name of Hira Lal & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2000 by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner, in these circumstances, filed a representation under Section 22 of the Act to the Government of India against the incorporation of the respondent No. 4 company with the aforesaid name. This representation of the petitioner has been decided by impugned order dated 4th July, 2001. In this order passed by the Regional Director (NR), Kanpur it is accepted that the name of the respondent No. 4 is identical a...

Arjan Dass and Others Vs. Royal Nepal Airlines

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 24.10.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), in Complaint Case No. OC/309/2000 entitled Shri Arjan Dass and Ors. v. Royal Nepal Airlines, 44 Janpath, New Delhi. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellants had travelled from Delhi Airport to Kathmandu (Nepal) on 2.5.1992 by Flight No. RA-218, operated by the respondent. It was stated that at the time of boarding the flight at Delhi, the appellants had handed over their baggage, consisting of 5 suitcases to the functionaries of the respondent for being transported from Delhi to Nepal. It was stated that, on their arrival at Kathmandu Airport, all the 5 suitcases, were f...

N.K. Sharma Vs. Bank of Maharashtra 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 16.11.2002, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 2195/2000 entitled Shri N.K. Sharma v. The Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Alaknanda, New Delhi and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri N.K. Sharma, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had a Savings Bank Account with respondent No. 1 and on 2.1.2000 in the above said account of the appellant there was a balance of Rs. 71,662.42. It was stated that on 5.1.2000, the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 2,09,500/-, drawn on another Bank, in his above mentioned Savings Bank Account. It was stated that on that very date, the ap...

Dujodwala Industries and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(110)LC126Tri(Delhi)

1. In these twelve appeals, filed against Order-in Original No. 25/90 dated 6.6.1990 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.Order-in-Appeal Nos. 431 to 434 dated 22.4.1991 and Order-in-Appeal Nos. 1166-1167/91 dated 29.11.1991, the common issues involved are whether the value of clearances of Excisable goods cleared by M/s.Dujodwala Industries, M/s. Dujodwala Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Rasin & Terpene Industries are to be clubbed for the purpose of extending the benefit of Small Scale Exemption, whether the goods are chargeable to Central Excise duty, whether the assessable value of the goods has to be determined on the basis of Depot Sale prices, whether the demand is time barred and whether demand of duty can be confirmed against the units held to be dummy units.2.1 Shri A.K. Jain learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Dujodwala Industries (DI is short) is a partnership firm manufacturing rosin products, terpene chemicals, camphor and sodium acetate; that they came into existence in...