Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Jagat Talkies Distributors and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT128; 2005(79)DRJ227

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners have impugned the notices dated 14.04.1981 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act' ) in respect of premises / land measuring 1389 sq. yds. of Nahar Sadat Khan, Delhi and the structure constructed thereon. The third notice of the same date issued under Section 7(3) of the said Act in respect of damages has also been impugned.2. The matter was admitted in terms of the Order dated 02.09.1981 and interim orders were granted in favor of the petitioners staying the proceedings before the Estate Officer noticing that it is the petitioners' case that the lease has come to an end by efflux of time, but the petitioners dispute that they are in unauthorised occupation within the meaning of the said Act. While admitting the matter, it was directed that the same should be heard by a Full Bench. On an application of early hearing filed by...

K.K. Birla Academy and anr. Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT361

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Birla Academy a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 intended to set up an institute on the lines of the British Museum London with the object of highlighting facets of History, Culture and Scientific development in India. On 28.2.1985 it submitted an application to Delhi Development Authority seeking allotment of 15 to 20 acres of land in South Delhi. Along with the application, the academy submitted a statement of case to DDA.2. In the statement of case submitted, the academy outlined the object for which it intended to set up the institute. Facilities to be made available were highlighted. Extent of and nature of buildings required were stated. Extent of land requirement was justified.3. Considering the application submitted by the academy, DDA after appraisal of the statement of case submitted by the academy, informed the academy that in principle, DDA had decided to allot about 10 acres of land to it. The academy was asked to deposi...

Shadi Khan Vs. Surjeet Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC747; 117(2005)DLT504; 2005(80)DRJ420

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th April, 1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') in Suit No. 232/80, whereby the learned Tribunal has made an award in favor of Shri Shadi Lal in case No. 279/80 to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- on all counts.2. The brief facts of this case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :''Facts of the case are that on 19/4/80 about 12.00 noon a tempo bearing No. DHG-8916 driven by the Res. No. 4 was stopped near B.T. P.S. Gate within the police station of Badarpur and some children were alighting there from. A truck bearing No. HRF-2586 driven by the Res. 1 rashly and negligently and without blowing any horn came from behind and struck against the tempo, impact of this was so much that the tempo moved ahead and the tempo was pushed forward and struck against the wall of Building of B.T.P.S. the wall was broken. A lady and a child were sitting near the wall and were crushed and ...

Vishal Goods Transport Co. Vs. Mahavir Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a transporter. Vide impugned order dated 8.6.1999 passed by the District Forum the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 41,569/- (after deduction of Rs. 15,000/- from total value of the consigned goods being Rs. 56,569/-) with interest @ 15% p.a. from 2.12.1992 besides Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Admittedly two consignments, one for 35 cartons another for 30 cartons were booked by the respondent with the appellant. Total value of the consignments was Rs. 56,569/-. Both the consignments were in the name of the respondent and the appellant was directed to give delivery of the same to M/s. Raja Agencies on the basis of consignee copy. However, the goods were delivered to M/s. Raja Agencies, Kota on the receipt of Rs. 15,000/- whereas respondent No. 2 remitted out of the said amount to respondent No. 1 Rs. 10,000/- on 30.1.1993 and Rs. 5,000/- on 29.4.1993. 3. According to the app...

Jasch Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC269

1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by an assessee (appellants) as well as the Cross-Objections submitted by the Revenue (respondent) against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal. The appellants have challenged the imposition of penalty on them, whereas the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the impugned order regarding setting aside of the confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of redemption fine in respect thereof by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 23.9.1999, the Central Excise Officers intercepted the tempo on Bahalgarh Road, Sonepat, which was loaded with the goods 'Coated Fabrics' manufactured by the appellants.The driver of the tempo, no doubt, produced the invoices in respect of those goods, but on checking of the record to the appellants after the tempo was brought back to their factory premises, it revealed that they had neither debited the duty leviable on those goods nor entered in the RG-23 Part-II register or i...

Cce Vs. Joyco India Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC321

1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the availability of the modvat credit to the respondents on the rubber gloves under Rule 57-A as inputs.2. I have heard both sides. The perusal of file shows that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Chewing Gum and other confectionary items falling under Chapter Heading 1704 of the CETA. The Rubber Gloves are being used by their workers while working in the factory for manufacturing the above said goods. The adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit holding the same to be not an input under rule 57A and confirmed the demand of Rs. 48,706/- with penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents though the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order by holding that these gloves are being used by the workers of the respondents for the protection of their hands as well as the protection of the goods from contamination. The learned counsel has relied upon the ratio of the law laid down in the case of Samtel E...

Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. The State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") has filed O. A. No. 31 of 2003 against the appellant-M/s. Montari Industries Limited (the first defendant, and hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendant") and others for the recovery of Rs. 17,47,21,665.73 with interest and costs before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"). The appellant-defendant filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA"), read with rule 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, for stay of proceedings before the DRT in view of the pendency of the appeal before the AAIFR.In that application it was averred that the BIFR by order dated August 1, 1997, declared the appellant-defendant as a sick industrial unit, appointed an operating agency to work out a rehabilitation scheme, but by order dated January 9, 2003, directed that the ap...

Asha Bhatia Vs. V.L. Bhatia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT191; I(2005)DMC191; 2005(79)DRJ192

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This application on behalf of the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 [a] and [d] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short the `CPC') seeks rejection of the plaint in which the defendant claims that the suit is barred by `law' on the ground that the parties though married in India under Hindu law were settled in Dubai where there were some settlement terms arrived at between the parties and consequently the plaint deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 2. The defendant, who has taken these pleas in his written statement has nevertheless pressed this application for decision and is seeking the dismissal of the suit on the ground of its being barred by `law'. For this purpose, Mr. Nanda, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant/applicant has submitted that the Section 1 & 2 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956(in short the `HAMA') indicate that the Act applies to whole of India and, thereforee, its operation cann...

Accurate Transformers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT577TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Accurate Transformers Ltd., the issue involved is whether they have to discharge the duty liability on the bought out items used for the repair of transformers.2. We heard Shri Rajesh Chhibar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, learned D.R. for the Revenue.3. The appellants manufacture electric transformers which are mainly supplied by them to the Electricity Boards. The Electricity Boards send the transformers, whenever there is some defect or any repair or maintenance is required to the appellants. While carrying out such repair, the appellants use some components in respect of which they have taken the Modvat credit of the duty and some components in respect of which no Modvat credit of the duty has been availed of by them. They are debiting the duty on the modvatable inputs whenever these are used for the repair work. The Revenue has demanded the Central Excise duty from them on the ground that the activity of repairing the...

Mahendra Steels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT119TriDel

1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who ordered the confiscation of the cash and imposed penalty as detailed therein.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on record to prove the receipt of the excisable goods by the appellants from any manufacturing unit in a clandestine manner and that the cash amount lying with him in his office could not be legally confiscated on the ground that the same was sale proceeds of excisable goods on which no duty was paid. No statement of any manufacturing unit was recorded to prove the receipt of excisable goods without payment of duty by the appellants. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the re...