Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

Minny Enterprises Vs. the General Manager, Itdc and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)10; 2004(1)ARBLR64(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT236; 2003(71)DRJ112

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. This is an application made by the respondent under the provision of 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the objections filed by the petitioner under the provision of Sections 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 because of new enactment having come into force, viz, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The respondent seeks dismissal of the objections on the strength of judgments rendered by the Apex Court in 'Thyssen case' : AIR1999SC3923 and also in view of another judgment known as 'Rani Construction case' again rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 61/99.3. The respondent also seeks dismissal of the objections filed under the old Act in view of insertion of Section 21 and Section 85(2) in the new Act which came into force on 1st January, 1996.4. Before I proceed to deal with this legal aspect it is essential to advert to few facts in brief.5. The respondent ITDC Ltd. had invited tenders for installation, testing and commissioning of an MATV and CTV ...

Sheela Rani (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. Jagdish Chander Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)13; AIR2004Delhi158; 107(2003)DLT309; 2003(71)DRJ122

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. R.S.A. 115 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.7.2002 of the learned Additional District Judge in R.C.A. No. 11/1997, arising out of judgment and decree dated 26.2.1997 of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 124/1986. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2002 dismissed the appeal while concurring with findings of the trial court.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the trial court, are :-' That the plaintiff is the absolute licensee of land underneath and owner of the super-structure of property No. A/2-A/226, Janakpuri, New Delhi, which was purchased by him from Delhi Development Authority under its Cash Down Scheme, in the year 1971 on execution of document of title in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is the wife of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is the son, defendant No. 4 is his daughter and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 2. The said property was in the tenancy of a tenant who surrendered th...

State Vs. Umesh Ghai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)481; 108(2003)DLT190; I(2004)DMC64; 2003(71)DRJ528; 2004(1)JCC8

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. petitioner/State is seeking cancellation of bail of respondent (Umesh Ghai) in case FIR No.350/1999, u/Ss. 304/498-A/34 IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi. 2. The respondent is the husband of the deceased. By order dated 26.2.2000 passed by the Court of Sh. L.D. Mual, ASJ, he was released on bail. Learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that learned ASJ gravely erred in appreciating the evidence in detail while granting bail and the order runs into ten pages. Learned counsel argued that at the time of granting bail, evidence could not be appreciated which can be done only at the end of the trial. However, she submits that three and a half year has already been passed after the impugned order is passed and in view of long lapse of time, she would not at this stage press cancellation of bail on merits but would only pray for suitable directions so that the observations do not affect the decision on merits of the case and for ex...

Harichand Kidarnath Khanna and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC673

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed against the common Order-in-original dated 24.2.94 vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise, ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and confirmed duty and imposed penalties on them, as detailed therein.2. Appellant No. 1 is a firm, while appellant No. 2 is its partner.They are engaged in the business of processing textile fabrics. On interception of one truck on 6.2.91, near octroi naka thane which was loaded with the goods, the Central Excise officers raided the factory premises of the appellants on the plea that they were indulging in clandestine removal of the gods, without payment of duty. The officers collected record from the transporters through whom grey fabrics used to be received by the appellants and on the basis of that record and other document furnished by the transporters, the officers came to the conclusion that grey fabrics and finished goods were not accounted for, by the appellants. The statements of various ...

Tata International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT290TriDel

1. These appeals at the instance of the assessee arise out of a common order 18-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 273-74-CE/BPL/2002.2. The appellants are having a tanning plant at Dewas where they manufactured finished leather, leather garments and leather footwear and parts thereof. The appellants were selling products at a higher price from the retail outlet than the price at which the goods were cleared at factory gate. It filed a price list in Part I under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules showing the price at the factory gate sale as the price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, The Assistant Collector refused to approve the price list and directed the appellants to pay the differential amount of duty between the wholesale price and retail selling price. It is alleged that since nothing was given in writing to the appellants till the duty demanded was deposited, the appellant had to pay duty according t...

Kelvinator of India Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT189TriDel

1. This is an application by M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of erroneous refund of Rs. 6,02,673.40.2. Shri P. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 581/98-C, dated 7-8-98 has allowed their appeal against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides v.U.O.I - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 201; that no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's Final Order; that even then the refund has been denied to them on the ground that the Bombay High Court decision in Solar Pesticides has been set aside by the Supreme Court as reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). The learned Advocate finally contended that once the Order passed by the Tribunal in their own case has attained the finality, the refund claim cannot be denied relying upon the decision in some other matter. I also heard Shri...

Shri Rati Ram Gotewala Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89ITD14(Delhi)

1. The appellant/assessee in this case is one Shri Rati Ram Gotewala.He is assessed with the Income-tax Department in the capacity of an individual. Shri Rati Ram Gotewala and his family members are into the business of Saris. They have their shops in Delhi and Calcutta. So is the situation with regard to their residences. They also have bank lockers in Delhi and Calcutta. Shri Rati Ram Gotewala is a partner in M/s Rati Ram Ram Vinod & M/s Rati Ram Vinod & Co. He is a Director in Rati Ram Ram Vinod Saree Store Pvt. Ltd. and proprietor of M/s. R.Bakesh Behari & Co.2. On 24th September, 1997 the business premises of the said group companies/concerns, which are associated with Mr Rati Ram Gotewala, were subjected to search by the Income-tax Department. Searches were carried out at the business and residential premises at Delhi and Calcutta with respect to group companies associated with Rati Ram Gotewala. The searches conducted by the Department lead to seizure of documents/b...

Smt. Anari Devi Vs. Shri Tilak Raj and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2004)ACC739; 2005ACJ1397

S.K.Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. With the consent of the parties, matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of her son who had died in a road accident on 18.5.1997 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The deceased at the time of the accident was 18 years of age and was allegedly working as a conductor on a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. The appellant who is the mother of the deceased was about 45 years of age at the time of the accident. After holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the tribunal also held that the appellant being the mother of the deceased was entitled to compensation. The Tribunal, however, did not believe the evidence of the appellant that the deceased was employed as a conductor on a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month taking the income of the deceased to be the min...

Jagdish Trading Co. Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2004]138STC346(Delhi)

ORDER1. An order dated November 29, 2002 passed by a learned single Member of the Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax, Delhi ('the Tribunal' in short) in appeal No, 202/STT/2002-03, pertaining to the assessment year 1999-2000 (Local), is under challenge in this writ petition.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the Central Sales Tax Act, (for short, 'the Central Act') and furnish a security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority in the sum of Rs. 20,000 under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, 'the local Act') as a condition precedent for entertainment of its appeal before the first appellate authority.3. The order is assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the ground that the afore-noted direction by the Tribunal to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh under the Central Act is ex facie illegal as no appeal had been preferred by the petitioner under the Central Act before the Tribunal, i...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Vivek Mittal

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 1.5.2003 passed by District Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 83/2003 entitled Shri Vivek Mittal v. Bank of Baroda. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Vivek Mittal, in his capacity as Proprietor of M/s. Jaypee Corporation, R-15, Reeta Block, Hemraj Shopping Centre, Shakarpur, Delhi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent was having a Current Account, bearing No. 1833 in the appellant Bank (erstwhile the Banaras State Bank Limited). It was stated that the respondent had deposited a cheque, bearing No. 0118645 dated 31.7.2000 for Rs. 70,564/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Jhansi Branc...