Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

R.K. Sharma and ors. Vs. D.T.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2003)ACC168; 2004ACJ1923; 2003VAD(Delhi)619; 106(2003)DLT250; 2003(71)DRJ595

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Both the above appeals arise from the same award and since common questions of law and facts arise in both the above cases, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. While in FAO No.347/1997, the appellants are claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Smt.Chander Kanta, wife of appellant no.1 and mother of appellants 2 and 3, in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, the DTC has filed appeal being FAO No.57/1998 challenging the award of the Tribunal in favor of the respondents on the ground that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellants by its driver. The facts in short giving rise to both these appeals are:- That on 23.1.1991, when the deceased was riding on the pillion of the two-wheeler scooter being...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)256; [2003]264ITR499(Delhi); [2003]176TAXMAN536(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. While admitting the IT Appeal No. 163 of 2001, Division Bench on 10th Dec., 2001, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, framed the substantial question of law. This application is filed for recalling the order made by the Division Bench at the stage of admission formulating the question of law. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is usual practice in this Court that before framing the questions of law, the respondents are to be heard, irrespective of the fact that appeal is filed by the assessed or by the Revenue.2. Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, is required to be perused for this purpose and particularly Sub-sections (3) and (4). We reproduce Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 :'(3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.(4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated, and the respondents shall, at the he...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Sh. Harish Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)106; AIR2003Delhi458; III(2004)BC260; [2004]121CompCas142(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT244; 2003(71)DRJ150

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1 These are two applications made by the plaintiff one under Ordered r 9 Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 CPC and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2 This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of sum of Rs. 8,63,739.20 which was filed way back in the year 1994 but was dismissed in default on 23.7.1998 when it was at the stage of framing of issues. Since neither any representative of the plaintiff nor the counsel for the plaintiff appeared on that date thereforee it resulted in dismissal for default.3. It is averred in the application that this suit was filed through Ms. Vrinda Dhar, one of the Panel Advocates of the plaintiff bank. She had to go out of country in June,1997 and had entrusted the matter to Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate, who probably was her associate. Mr. Popli had appeared twice in the matter on 15th July,1997 and 12th December,1997 and sought adjournment on the ground that counsel for the plaintiff was away from India. However, ...

Shri Ashok Kumar Goenka Vs. Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)109; 107(2003)DLT569; 2003(71)DRJ154

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This order shall deal with an application made by the plaintiff under the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and shall also simultaneously deal with the application made by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, as the points raised in both the applications are common. 2. This is a suit for specific performance of the contract dated 15th September, 2002 whereby a deal was struck between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the sale of the second floor of the property bearing No.A-59, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi-52.3. As averred in the plaint the defendant agreed to sell the aforesaid property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as part performance of the contract. He agreed to pay further sum of Rs.5,50,000/- by first Navratras. Remaining amount, as full and final payment, was agreed to be paid on or before 30th November, 2003. This is so incorporated in receipt dated 15th September, 2002 ...

Bhagwat and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)665; 2003(70)DRJ444

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The order impugned in the present petition is an order dated 22.2.1978 passed by the Lt. Governor in a Revision Petition under Section 20 of the Delhi Land Holding (Ceiling) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Revision Petition had been preferred by the petitioner against the gazette publication dated 1.5.1976 under Para IV of the Delhi Gazette under Section 6(3) of the said Act declaring excess land of Shri Amar Singh in Village Ali, Delhi. The petitioners in the present petition are the legal representatives of late Shri Amar Singh. 2. In the impugned order dated 20.2.1978 it is noted that upon the filing of the Revision Petition under Section 20 of the said Act, the respondents therein had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Revision Petition. It was the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have filed the Revision Petition under Section 20 without first exhausting the remedy of filing o...

Darshan Khurana Vs. Smt. Pushpa Lata and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioner, under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against a common order have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petitions lie in a narrow compass. The respondents, in the above mentioned petitions, had filed separate complaints under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The complaints, so filed by the respondents, were allowed by the District Forum. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the District Forum on the complaint filed by the respondents, the respondents had filed separate applications under Section 2...

A.K. Sood Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acu)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT551TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant made import of certain goods and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 72/96. A SCN was issued to the appellant asking for differential duty after dening the benefit of notification. Thereafter the adjudication order was passed.2. The contention of the appellant is that they have never received a SCN nor adjudication order. They have only received Recovery Notice which was issued on Jan'02 asking for the demand of Rs. 33,201/-. The appellant filed the appeal against this order and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal is not maintainable against this notice and the appeal is also time barred.The appellant's contention is that no SCN was issued nor adjudication order was served upon them and this issue has been raised by them and the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered this issue.3. The contention of ...

Vaidya Nandram Gigraj Chamria Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT354TriDel

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, 45 products manufactured by the appellant were classified by the Ayurvedic medicine whereas the claim of the appellant is that these are spices. Now the appellant before us made an alternative plea that these are proprietary medicines. The appellant also pleaded that lower authorities wrongly denied the benefit of Small-Scale Exemption notification on the ground that they were manufacturing the goods under the brand name of "CHAMRIA" owned by some different persons.2. We find that in this case the classification of 45 items has been decided by the Revenue as Ayurvedic medicines only on the ground that proprietor of the firm in his first statement mentioned that these are Ayurvedic medicines. There is no finding regarding the ingredient of the medicines as provided under Chapter 30 of Tariff. The claim of the appellant before adjudicating authority that these are ...

Ms. Devi Rani and anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)601; 105(2003)DLT788; 2003(70)DRJ90

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an application under Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151 CPC, moved by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiffs have filed the above suit to be declared as owners of the property bearing No. 5685, Gali No. 79-80, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The declaration is sought on the basis of a Will executed by the deceased Mai Singh in favor of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Prayer in the suit was for plaintiffs 1 and 2 to be declared as sole owners of the property, debarring defendant not to cause eclipse of the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, i.e. I.A. No. 5732/2002 was also moved, wherein it was averred that the defendant had extended threats to vacate the portion under his occupation in the suit property and hand over the same to the defendant's brothers Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Bhagat Singh. An ad-interim injunction was sought to restrain the defendant from handin...

Anurag Vardhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)Crimes401; 105(2003)DLT594; 2003(69)DRJ583

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) for grant of bail in case No. RC No. 31(A)/2003-DLI dated 22.5.2003 under Section 120-B, IPC, read with Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is an IRS officer; he was working as Deputy Commissioner in the Income-tax Department at New Delhi. The prosecution allegations are that on 22.5.2003, at about 9.30 a.m., Shri Perumal Swamy @ Babu (co-accused), who was then working as Personal Assistant to the Minister of State for Finance, was arrested in front of his house and Rs. 4.0 lacs was recovered from him. Thereafter, petitioner's house was searched and another Rs, 3.0 lacs was recovered. Petitioner was also arrested. CBI also arrested Mr. A Krishnamurthy, (co-accused), Chartered Accountant, from Chennai and recovered Rs. 69,58,...