Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

S.P. Sachdeva Vs. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power 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 19.2.2003, passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 650/2002entitled Shri S.P. Sachdeva v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri S.P. Sachdeva had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, the appellant had prayed that directions be issued to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 6,670/- together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In all, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 20,170/- to be paid to him by the respondent. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. The learned District Forum vide...

Cce Vs. Nalanda Spinners and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC113Tri(Delhi)

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue for questioning the validity of the impugned orders-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority and dropped the duty demands against the respondents.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of yarn on hollow spindles consisting of wool, animal hair and man-made fibres. The core of the yarn primarily consists of polyester filament yarn/man-made yarn. The yarn so manufactured is subjected by them to the process of raising on the raising machines.3. The issue involved in the present appeals relates to the classification of the above said yarn. According to the Department, the yarn is classifiable under Chapter Sub-heading 5606.00 of the CETA, while the stand taken up by the respondents is that it is classifiable under Chapter 5107 of the CETA. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand by holding classification under 5606 of the ...

O.P. Aggarwal Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)BC60

1. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 454/1999 against (1) Ganpati Combines Ltd., (2) Sh. O.P. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and (3) Ganpati Exports Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 9,80,81,396/- with interest and costs before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'). The learned Presiding Officer of DRT accordingly passed a common ex parte final order dated 22.1.2001 in O.A. No. 454/1999 as well as in O.A. No.452/1999 and 453/1999.2. Appellant-defendant who is the 2nd defendant in the above O.A. filed on 16.10.2001, a miscellaneous application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for setting aside the above said ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 17.10.2001, dismissed the said miscellaneous application observing...

Gynendra Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)86ITD421(Delhi)

1. These two appeals filed by the assesses involve the common question of law and facts and thus are being taken up and are disposed of together.2. Common grounds in the appeals, which revolve around the tax liability of the amount in the hands of the assessee which amount have been received by the assessee the form of compensation from the original owners whose property the assessee had purchased in Court auction and ultimately left the property on the receipt of compensation under compromise recorded in the apex Court. The assessee has a grievance that the amount has wrongly been taxed as casual and non-recurring by the authorities below. According to the assessee the amount so received is not taxable at all 3. To adjudicate this controversy in its right prospective it would be proper to refer to a few relevant facts available on record.4. Against a property in Friends Colony, New Delhi which was mortgaged and belonged to M/s The Table Ware Craft Cottage, Shri R.K. Goel, Shri Virend...

Dr. D.S. Mishra (Retd.), Joint Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Thro ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)203; 104(2003)DLT885; 2003(69)DRJ405; 2004(1)SLJ35(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29th February 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing his O.A. No. 1667/96. For convenience, the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. 2. The submission of the Petitioner in brief is that he has been working on an ad hoc basis as an Assistant Director in the Directorate of Adult Education since 27th May 1989. He says that he was regularly promoted to this post on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotions Committee held by the Union Public Service Commission, but the promotion was erroneously made with effect from 4th January 1995. According to the Petitioner he is entitled to regular promotion to the post of Assistant Director with effect from 27th May 1989, the date when he was first appointed as such. 3. The case made out by the Petitioner is that his promotion to the post of Assistant Director is...

Reckit Benckiser (India) Limited Vs. Naga Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT490; 2003(68)DRJ441; 2003(26)PTC535(Del); [2003]45SCL305(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed this Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, being aggrieved by the Defendant's television commercial which depicts a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy needing urgent medical assistance during a train journey. The doctor calls for hot water and is handed a cake of soap which she rejects, stating that an antiseptic soap is needed. It is not in dispute that the soap which was handed over to the doctor is identifiable by viewers as the Plaintiff's product, namely, Dettol Soap. The doctor further states in the commercial that 'at a time like this, you do not need just antiseptic, you need a protector'. The Defendant's Ayurvedic soap is then shown and it is concurrently stated that it is a body 'rakshak' soap, the first Ayurvedic soap that completely removes all seven kinds of terms and protects from infection. The Plaintiff's grievance is that this commercial disparages its Dettol Soap. It is averred that the intention behind the comm...

Madura Coats Limited Vs. Bank of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)BC27; [2003]116CompCas291(Delhi); (2003)3CompLJ494(Del); 105(2003)DLT37; 2003(68)DRJ745; [2003]44SCL718(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. A legal nodus of considerable interest and import has arisen in this case; whether a third party can invoke the moratorium available under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `SICA'). The Plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.87,99,121.00 under Order xxxvII of the CPC against the Bank of India (as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 `the Bank' for short) and HILTON Rubbers Ltd. (Defendant No. 3 `HILTON' for short). HILTON had placed several purchase orders for nylon and polyster fabrics on the Plaintiff in February and March, 1999 and on instructions of HILTON, the Bank had opened Irrevocable Letters of Credit for the payment of the material supplied against the aforementioned purchase orders. Payments were to be made by the Bank within ninety days from the date of dispatch in respect of 100% of the invoice value, but this was not done, ostensibly because of some discrepancies in the documentation. It is alleged by t...

Vijay Kumar Rajput Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT216

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present proceedings is an illustration of how the very provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the Act) are defeated by filing various proceedings and prevent the natural conclusion of the proceedings initiated under the special Act.The petitioner is a licensee of shop No. 243 in Palika Bazar and proceedings were initiated in 1985 against the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act for recovery of license fee and interest. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the matter was fixed for evidence of respondent Council herein. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent Council in which certain interim orders were passed.2. The said interim orders have not been annexed to the present writ petition but from perusal of the order of the Estate Officer dated 5.9.2002 it can be deciphered that interim orders were granted in favor of the petitioner directing stay of dispossession and r...

Shri Mahavir Iron Industries (P) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT422TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots. Appellants were using induction furnace for production of the final product, therefore, are liable to pay central excise duly under Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Appellants filed their declaration dated 23-2-98 and opted for payment of central excise duty under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules. The Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 27-3-98 determined the annual production capacity of the Furnace on the basis of the declaration filed by the appellants. Appellants continued to pay central excise duty, as per order dated 27-3-98.3. The contention of the appellants is that vide letter dated 12-5-98, they made a request to determine the annual production capacity of their furnace on the basis ...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. C.M. Mathew

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 17.5.2001, passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/788/98, entitled Shri C.M. Mathew v. Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts 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 averring therein that his new Maruti Standard car 1997 model bearing Registration No. DL-6-CD-2820 had been stolen on 24.2.1998 while the same was parked duly locked in front of his quarter. An FIR had been lodged with regard to the same and the police had, after due investigations, submitted an untraced report on 24.3.1998. The said car was duly insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2,02,688/- vide Policy No. 311402019488 for the period from 27.8.1997 to 26.8.1998. After the theft of the...