Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

New Delhi Bar Association (Regd.) and ors. Vs. National Capital Territ ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)294; 107(2003)DLT761; (2004)136PLR1; 2003RLR579

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) has been filed by New Delhi Bar Association as well as the two Advocates, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 against whom the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide orders dated 20.11.1995 took cognizance for offences under Sections 182 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that an FIR No. 555/95 was registered at P.S. Trilok Puri under Sections 366A/341/506/376 read with Section 34, IPC. The accused moved an application for bail which came up for hearing on 15.11.1995 before Shri S.N. Dhingra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The bail application was supported by an affidavit of the prosecutrix Suman in which she mentioned her age as 18 years. However, in the course of hearing before the Court she stated that her age was 17 years and som...

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(109)AWC944; 2003(72)DRJ326

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 131/2002 under Sections 302/34, P.S., Badarpur, Delhi.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged eye-witness of the occurrence PW-2 (Amit Kumar), of the case has already been examined. No role is assigned to the petitioner. Statement of PW-2 has been filed. It is argued that there is no evidence. Learned counsel for the state is unable to contest the same.3. In view of above, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.4. Trial Court record be sent back.5. Petition stands disposed of.dusty....

Director General, Department of Post and Another Vs. Mrs. Poonam Kumar ...

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 20.11.2002, passed by District Forum), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2208/99 entitled Smt. Poonam Kumari v. The Director General of Department of Post of India and Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that her mother Smt. Ram Rati had opened a MIS account with respondent No. 2 (Post Master, Main Post Office, Khurja) and had deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in the above said account. If was stated that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari was nominated as a nominee in respect of the above said account. It was stated that the mother of the respondent said Smt. Ram Rati expired on 26.1.1998 and ...

Kapil Gupta Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

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 24th January, 2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. OC/2042/1998 entitled Shri Kapil Gupta v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Kapil Gupta had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant on 22nd July, 1996 had taken a Mediclaim Policy from the respondent known as Hospitalisation and Domicilised Hospitalisation Benefit Policy which was valid for the period from 22.7.1996 to 21.7.1997. It was stated that on 30th June, 1997 the appellant suffered severe pain in the abdomen and was admitted in Sukhda Hospital on 1st July, 1997. It was stated that from Sukhda Hospital, ...

Director General, Department of Post and Another Vs. Vinod Kumar

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 11.9.2002 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2209/99 entitled Shri Vinod Sharma v. The Director General of Department of Post of India and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Vinod Sharma filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that his mother-in-law, Smt. Ram Rati had opened an MIS account with respondent No. 2 (Post Master, Main Post Office, Khurja) and had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the above said account. It was stated in the complaint that the respondent Shri Vinod Sharma was made a nominee of said Smt. Ram Rati in respect of the above said account. It was stated that the mother-in-law of the respondent, by name, ...

Director General, Department of Post and Another Vs. Smt. Poonam Kumar ...

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 20.11.2002 passed by District Forum), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2208/1999-entitled Smt. Poonam Kumari v. The Director General of Department of Post of India and Anr. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal briefly stated are that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that her mother Smt. Ram Rati had opened an MIS account with respondent No. 2 (Post Master, Main Post Office, Khurja) and had deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in the above said account. It was stated that the respondent Smt. Poonam Kumari was nominated as a nominee in respect of the above said account. It was stated that the mother of the respondent said Smt. Ram Rati expired on 26.1.1998 and...

Shiva Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT266TriDel

1. In this appeal, which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, they have only prayed for the reduction in the penalty amount of Rs. 75,000/- confirmed against them under Rule 173Q of the Rules, by the Commissioner (Appeals) after reducing the same from Rs. 1 lakh which was imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the duty evaded was of Rs. 39,780/-, therefore, the penalty amount should not go beyond amount.The learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the appellants are habitual in violating the provisions of Rule 173Q of the Rules as earlier also they had indulged in the clandestine removal of the goods and were penalised.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. So far as the argument of the learned Counsel that the penalty could not be imposed more than the amount of duty evaded by the appellants, the same, in my view, cannot be accepted. The penalty under...

Birla Ericsson Opticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT97TriDel

1. The issue raised in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellant to refund of excess amount of excise duty paid in respect of certain supplies of optical fibre cables made by them to Department of Telecom.The clearances took place during August to September, 1999. The appellant claimed refund on the ground that price for the supplies were settled only on 5-10-1999, i.e. subsequent to removal of the goods from the factory and their supply to DoT. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground that relevant price for assessment of goods is the price at the time of removal of the goods from the factory and subsequent variations/reductions have no relevance. The lower authorities have also relied on the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Industrial Cables India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1999 (112) E.L.T. 548] and the Apex Court's decision in the case of MRF Ltd. 2. The submission of the appellants is that the denial of refund is the result of ...

Laxmi Exports, Shri Ashok Kumar Vs. Cc, Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC38

1. These appeals relate to a common issue, over-invoicing of exports in order to obtain higher drawback. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order. Appeal No. C-355/2002-A 2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. The grievance made in this appeal of M/s. Laxmi Exports is against denial of drawback.3. The learned SDR has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal filed by M/s. Laxmi Exports. The ground taken is that the impugned order had imposed a penalty on Shri Deepak Kumar, Proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Exports and that appeal (C/357/02-A) was dismissed vide Final Order No. 577-578/2002-A, dated 14.11.2002 for non-compliance with order directing pre-deposit of part of the penalty amount. It is the contention of the learned SDR that the present appeal C/355/2002-A filed by M/s. Laxmi Exports is required to be dismissed in view of Final Order No. 577-578/2002-A, dated 14.11.2002. The learned SD...

Triveni Glass Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC515

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Flat Glass of different varieties, they filed 5 refund claims in respect of clearances made from July to November 2000 on the ground that they has paid excess Central Excise Duty at the time of removal of the goods to their dealers. The impugned orders have rejected these refund applications on the ground the original payment of duty at the time of clearance of the goods from the factory was based on sales price and since those sales prices constituted the correct assessable value, no excess payment of duty has taken place. It was also held that the credit notes issued (subsequent to the sales) to the dealers who purchased the goods were issued without any valid ground since price of the goods was known at the time of removal from the factory.2. It is the submission of the appellants that, during the relevant period, their practice was to clear the goods from the factory and dispatch them to dealers by showing a uniform price fixed in a meeting o...