Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Harjit Kaur and ors. Vs. Jagdeep Singh Rikhy

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT392

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. For the purpose of these applications I shall only read the Plaint. In paragraph 17 thereof it has been pleaded that the Plaintiffs are legal heirs of the deceased Niranjan Dass Rikhy and Smt Harbans Kaur are also the Defendants. In the same sentences, it is stated that by virtue of their discordance they 'are entitled to the possession and partition of the property by metes and bounds.' Thus for the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh and Ors. v. Gujjar Singh (dead) by LRs and Ors., 1 (2002) CLT 100 =2002 (1) SC 36, would apply in favor of the Plaintiffs since the possession of a property belonging to several co-sharers of one co-sharer maybe deemed to be the possession of all co-sharers. thereforee, a triable issue would arise making it questionable as to whether this suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, however, the averments in the Plaint do not stop here. In paragraph 22 it has been pleaded that 'the...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suresh Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The only dispute arising in this appeal directed against order dated 15.4.2002 is with regard to the amount of loss suffered by the respondent in respect of the articles or goods stolen from the shop which was duly insured by the appellant for Rs. 10,00,000/-. 2. Though the appellant has raised a plea that the shop of the respondent was insured only for theft whereas the shop was insured against burglary yet the fact remains that the articles were stolen from the shop of the respondent the price of which was assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 86,000/- whereas the respondent assessed the loss of Rs. 1,53,400/-. 3.Theft is the genesis of every other crime namely robbery, dacoity, hijacking or burglary. Theft as per dictionary meaning is an action or crime of stealing and for penal purpose is defined under Section 378 of I.P.C. which reads as under: Section 378. Theft.whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property...

Telco Vs. R.K. Khanna and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, New Delhi, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the M/s. Telco, who was O.P. No. 2 before the District Forum. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Sh. R.K. Khanna, purchased a car TATA Indica from M/s. Concord Motor Ltd., New Delhi on 2.4.1999 for Rs. 2,93,125/-. The car was manufactured by appellant Telco Limited and it carried a warranty for 18 months. According to the respondent Sh. R.K. Khanna, after run of only 1413 kilometres, the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 11.9.1999 as the AC was not working and the car was consuming more engine oil. Moreover, it also failed in pollution norms. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 30.9.1999 and again the vehicle failed in pollution norms. According to the respondent the defect was not rectified on 3.3.2000. Alternator was not working, it was to be replaced as battery was not getting charged. Again the ve...

Jagatpal Prem Chand Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(119)LC241Tri(Delhi)

1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s Jagat Pal Premchand Ltd., and their Director, the issue involved relates to manufacture and clearance of excisable goods without payment of duty.2.1 Shri R. Sudhinder, learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture Pan Masala and Gutkha from a rented premises; that the various raw materials mainly used are Supari, Katha, lime, M.C. Menthol and flavours; that laminates are used as packing material which they procure from M/s Sharp Industries Ltd., Mumbai on payment of duty; that they avail Modvat credit of the duty paid on laminates; that the Department had started the investigation against Sharp Industries on the basis of information that they had removed the laminates without payment of duty; that simultaneous search and seizure operations were carried out on 2.8.1994 at the premises of Sharp Industries and of appellants; that there was no discrepancy in the finished goods at their premises; that some stock of duty paid laminates wer...

Chadha Metals Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT78TriDel

1. The dispute in the present appeal is, whether 'Aluminium Scrap ISRI Grade Throb', is to be classified under Heading 7601 or 7602. The impugned order has held that the item will be classifiable under Heading 7601 as 'Unwrought Aluminium', and not under Heading 7602 as 'Aluminium Waste and Scrap'. The learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that in the international trade of Aluminium Scrap ISRI Grade Throb, is specifically recognized as 'Aluminium Scrap' and not as 'Unwrought Aluminium'. Further, DGFT also has adopted this classification in its eight digit classification. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that when eight digit classification was introduced into the Customs Tariff in 2004, under 76020000.10 various types of scrap have been specifically named and one such variety of scrap is 'Throb'. In view of this, the learned Counsel has contended that correct classification under the earlier scheme was 7602 as "Aluminium Waste and Scrap".2. We have heard the lear...

Jindal Polyester Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC297

1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original disallowing the refund claim of the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Bopet film. They were allowed duty clearance 25% of the production in value. Since they made DTA clearances after getting due permission in advance, the same were to be adjusted ultimately by working their total entitlement of the DTA clearance. They had been denied this benefit on the ground that their DTA clearances in terms of the quantity were not up to the requirement.At the time of de-bonding, they were called upon to pay the differential duty and they accordingly paid which was worked out at Rs. 28,90,300. Thereafter the appellants lodged the refund claim, which had been rejected by the authorities below.3. We find that the order vide which the differential du...

R.C.S. Vanaspati Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC291Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vegetable products.Several show-cause notices were issued to the appellant asking for differential duty on the ground that the cost of containers are to be included in the assessable value of the final product.3. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the containers are returnable and in terms of letter issued by Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies (Department of Civil Supplies), up to 31.7.1985, the value of returnable containers which are re-used in the packing of final product is not includible in the assessable value of the final product. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that after 31.7.1985 as the Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies had not allowed the use of second hand containers in the packing of the final product, therefore, after this date the value of the co...

Kapson Polycoats (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Icd, Tkd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC277

1. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. In this case the demand was confirmed in respect of the mis-declaration of the value of the imported goods and the goods were confiscated on the ground that the goods were imported in contravention of the EXIM policy as the second-hand goods were more than 10 years old.3. The contention of the appellants is that they voluntarily agreed to enhance the value of the imported goods to 10%, which was accepted by the adjudicating authority, therefore, no suppression can be alleged on this ground.4. In respect of the confiscation, on account of violation of EXIM policy, the contention of the appellant is that the goods were more than 10 years old as per the examination report and, therefore, the impugned order in respect of the confiscation of the goods is not sustainable.5. The contention of the Revenue is that the value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Custom authorities ...

Cce Vs. Ambika Screen Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC984Tri(Delhi)

1. The appeals of the Revenue are directed against the order-in-appeal No. 491-493-CE/IND/APPL-I/03. dated 29.8.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the parts of Kerosene Stove manufactured by the respondents remained exempted under Small Scale Exemption Notification No. 41/94-CE.2. We have perused the record and heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order following the dictum in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Universal Electrical Industry 2003 (153) ELT 266 (SC) : 2003 (108) ECR 21 (SC).3. The contention of the Revenue is that, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order without considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. 2003 (153) 251 (SC).4. During the course of hearing of the case, the learned Counsel drew our attention to para 9 of the judgment in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., (supra). The perusal of the judgements in question wo...

Tahzeeb Ahmed Vs. Jamia Hamdard and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT317; 2004(77)DRJ324

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a Writ of Mandamus, the petitioner calls in question the constitutional validity of the conditions of eligibility stipulated by the respondent university for admission to the Bachelors course in Unani System of Medicine(BUMS) and for a direction to the university to admit him to the said course for the session 2003-04. 2. The petitioner has passed his intermediate examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of Uttar Pradesh. He appears to have applied for admission to Bachelors course in Unani System of Medicine (BUMS) in the year 2000 for the session 2000-01 but failed to earn a seat for himself on the basis of his performance in the entrance test. For the session 2003-04, the respondent which happens to be a deemed university once again announced the admission process in response to which the petitioner also submitted an application and appeared in the entrance examination. He was, on the basis of his rank in the merit l...