Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

Eastern Telecom and Technology Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. a ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. This order shall govern the disposal of complainants application dated 26.11.2001, filed for the restoration of the complaint, dismissed in default, vide order dated 5.11.2001. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, lie in a narrow compass. The complainant /applicant, Eastern Telecom Technology Limited, a company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 through Shri S.V. Gupta, Managing Director, has filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. This Commission vide order dated 30.4.1997 had given directions to the complainant for filing rejoinder and affidavit by way of evidence and on 30.4.1997 the case filed by the complainant, was adjourned to 9.7.1997. On 9.7.1997 the learned Counsel for the complainant prayed that the complainant be given some more time for filin...

Narendra and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC563

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The appellants engaged in the manufacture of Gun Powder, Slurry and Safety Fuse and clearing the goods on payment of duty. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that appellants deliberately mis-declared the price lower than the price actually charged from the customers in their invoices and this was done by the appellants to evade payment of duty.4. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was given to them the relied upon documents were also not supplied.5. We find that the adjudicating authority supplied the relied upon documents on 4.2.2000 which was duly acknowledged by the appellants.The appellants also received other documents on 16.4.2001 and the adjudicating authority also fixed the case for personal hearing which was duly conveyed to the appellants....

Prerna Syntex Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT69TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 653/(SN) C.E./JPR I(391)/2002, dated 1-11-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur. The order has demanded a duty of Rs. 16,32,432/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Appellant is a hundred per cent Export-Oriented Unit and the duty demand is in respect of the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by the appellant during the period 1-3-2000 to 31-7-2000. The appellant seeks to resist the duty demand on the ground that the goods in question were exempt from additional duty of excise under Notification No. 55/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91. The appellant also submits that Board's Circular No. 384/17/98-CX., dated 20-3-98 had clarified that goods in question were not liable to the additional duty of excise. As against this, the Revenue's contention is that Notification No. 55/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91 has no application in view of the amending Notification...

Shri Rajinder Kumar Vs. Shri Iqbal Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)469; AIR2003Delhi441; 2003(69)DRJ622

B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. A Suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and injunction was filed by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff against his six brothers, a sister and mother (since deceased) which was disposed of in terms of a compromise between the parties by an order dated 18th of August, 2000, operative part of which reads as under : 'Accordingly, the application is allowed. The parties will be bound by the terms of the compromise. Terms contained in compromise application, Family Settlement Along with annexure and Disclaimer Agreement Along with annexures shall form part of the decree sheet...' The Registry wrote to the parties concerned vide their letter dated 11th February, 2002 to file a valuation report of the immovable properties from an approved values and to supply requisite non-judicial stamp papers for drawing up the decree, which is being questioned by Sh. Iqbal Singh, defendant No.1, by means of instant application. 2. It is pleaded that late Sh. Ganga Bishan, ...

Bhartia Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajiv Saluja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT82; 2004(74)DRJ93; (2004)138PLR3

R. C. Jain, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 7th May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge on is No.255/2002 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC allowing the application and passing a decree for possession of the suit premises in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.2. The relevant facts which may be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent herein has filed a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits against the defendant-appellants with the averments and allegations that he is the landlord/owner of the property No.119/89, (New Number being 89-A, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062) consisting of a plot of land with a farmhouse constructed thereon. The said property was let out by the plaintiff to the defendants vide registered lease deed dated 1st September, 1990 for a period of five years at a monthly rent of Rs.35,000/-. The lease was renewed for a period of two years w.e.f. 1st September, 1995 to 31st August, 1997. The lease w...

Rajpal Mahana Vs. National Insurance Co. 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 9th April, 2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. TC/1267/98 - entitled Shri Rajpal Mahana v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Rajpal Mahana, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring therein that the appellant had taken a Household Insurance Policy from the respondent on 12th March, 1993 in respect of House No. B-45, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, for Rs. 1,50,000/-, for the period from 12th March, 1993 to 11th March, 1994. It was stated that on 31st May, 1993 the appellant, along with his wife, left the above said premises to meet his in-laws and when on the morning of 2nd June, 1993 th...

Bansal Ispat Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT813TriDel

1. The appeal of the appellants, through the impugned order, had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation.According to the Commissioner (Appeals), there was a delay of 32 days, whereas he could only condone the delay of up to 30 days, and being bound by the law, could not entertain the appeal.2. I have heard both sides. The bare perusal of the record shows that on the covering letter vide which the copy of the order-in-original was sent to the appellants, it was specifically mentioned that the appeal could be filed within three months either by presenting personally or by sending the same by post. The appellants therefore remained under the impression that the period of limitation provided to them was 90 days. They also sent the appeal by post on 26-2-2002 as it was so mentioned in the said covering letter of the order-in-original. The appellants cannot be, therefore, allowed to suffer by the lapse on the part of the Department. They instead of informin...

Shiva Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC892

1. Under the impugned order the Commissioner has confiscated a consignment of hair Shampoo imported in bulk packing [1000 Ltr. in each drum]. The Commissioner has also enhanced the value of the consignment from the declared value of about Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 12 lakhs. The confiscation has been made under Sections 111(d) and 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. An option to redeem the goods has been given on a payment of fine of Rs. 6 lakhs. There is also a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. Similar action has been taken with regard to 3800 labels valued at Rs. 3,800/- also.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The main contention of the appellant with regard to valuation of the goods is that the import was directly from the German manufacturer of the hair shampoo and there was no reason to doubt the transaction value or to enhance the same. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the impugned order does not bring out any reason for rejection of the transaction value. He...

Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)14; 105(2003)DLT776; 2003(69)DRJ701; 2003(3)RAJ240

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, both the above writ petitions are being decided. Petitioner-M/s. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in CW 7632/99 and petitioner- M/s. Pure Pharma Ltd. in CW 260/2000 are both aggrieved by the decision of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Union of India, denying them placement of trial orders for the manufacture and tableting of Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCP) on account of not having requisite manufacturing and marketing experience of two years. Placement of trial order was denied despite the requirement of two years' experience having been relaxed by a corrigendum, issued on 4th February, 1999, making new firms also eligible for trial orders, subject to their having valid drug license and satisfactory good manufacturing practices. The challenge in both the writ petitions is to the non-placement of orders under a common tender. Common questions of fact and law arise for consideration. Hence the two writ petitions are being decided by this judgm...

N.K. Suri Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)631; 105(2003)DLT619; 2003(69)DRJ586

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.Crl.M. 3622/2003:Allowed subject to just exceptions.Crl.M. 3621/2003 in Crl.M.(M) 2718/2003 :1. In view of the fact that the offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed as the non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned Magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address.2. Until and unless there was a report that the accused was avoiding service or have refused to accept the summons, such a coercive steps should not have been resorted. If at all there was a need to take such a coercive process, the Court should at the first instance have issued bailable warrants as the nature of the offence is not only bailable but punishment is only with that of fine. In view of the patent illegality in the order, there is no need for giving any notice. The petition is allowed at the threshold. The impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner shall appear bef...