Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Ex. Ct. D.V.R. Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT570; [2005(104)FLR880]; 2006(1)SLJ172(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th January, 2000 passed by the respondents imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect and also the order dated 9th June, 2003 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of removal was rejected.2. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 22nd December, 1992. In the writ petition it is stated by him that the petitioner came to know, for the first time, in 1994-1995 that a criminal case had been registered against him in the Police Station Dabri, Palam, pursuant to a First Information Report lodged on 4th December, 1997 under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that immediately on coming to know of the said fact the petitioner surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House Courts on 12th July, 1995 and was granted regular bail on 13th July, 1995. It is also stated that in the challan filed by th...

Miraj Marketing Corporation Vs. Vishaka Engineering and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT471; 2005(79)DRJ209

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed on January 31, 2003 by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 121/2000 dismissing the said suit.2. The suit was instituted by the appellant as the plaintiff against the respondents-defendants. In the cause title of the plaint, the appellant-plaintiff described itself as follows:-'M/s. Miraj Marketing Corporation (Regd)206, IInd Floor, Miraj Plaza,East Patel Nagar, Delhi-8'[Through its authorised representative]Mr.Amitabh SharmaThe original plaint filed by the plaintiff was amended subsequently and in the amended plaint also the appellant-plaintiff described itself as above. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm having its office at the aforementioned address. The said suit was instituted by the appellant-plaintiff seeking for a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,34,600/- along with pendente lite and future interest from the date of institution of ...

Sudhakar Sharma Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the quantum of compensation of Rs. 500/- for the mental agony suffered by him on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent awarded by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 28.1.1997 and has by way of this appeal asked for enhancement. 2. The facts demonstrating the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in brief are that the appellant applied on 17.6.1994 for a new water connection but the relevant file was misplaced by the concerned official of the respondent and on the request of one of the staff of the respondent the appellant moved another application on 5.4.1995. But since the connection was not released within a week he withdrew the said application on 25.4.1995 and all his oral requests for releasing connection fell on deaf ears and he was forced to move third application on 18.5.1995 and on this application the connection was released on 29.5.1995. This not only delayed the boring ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Deepak Kumar Bakshi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.8.1997 passed by the District Forum whereby it has been directed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 8,95,737.94 on account of delayed possession of the flat besides compensation of Rs. 1,000/- the appellant has preferred this appeal. The main contention of the Counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum has wrongly concluded that there was a delay on the part of the appellant in handing over the possession as the payment of the last instalment towards the cost of the flat was made by the respondent on 23.5.1994 whereas the letter of possession was issued on 1.8.1994 and actual physical possession was handed over on 2.9.1994 and as per terms of the allotment of the flat the appellant was required to hand over the possession within 6 months of the payment of the last instalment. However, we have perused the terms of the agreement. There is no such term which permits the appellant to take six...

Philips India Limited Vs. Rakesh Bhatia

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal arising from the order dated 14.10.1999 passed by the District Forum emanates from the misleading advertisement about a product known as Philips Power House Music System than the one sold to the respondent. 2. According to the respondent the said music system suffered from the following defects and discrepancies vis-a-vis the advertisement: (1) According to the advertisement it was mentioned to 500 Watts PMPO whereas it was only 450 Watts PMPO. (2) The advertisement showed that the said model has the matching speakers with AS 9500 Model with DH 928 whereas actually it was only DH 915. (3) In the advertisement it was mentioned that there are 17 functions in the remote control whereas it has only 3 functions. 3. The main contentions of the Counsel for the appellant against the impugned order are, firstly that the speakers given with the set had output of 500 watts and were of DH 928 as specified in the literature provided with the set; secondly that...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jaypee Advertisers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR87

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the impugned Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise in respect of reduction of penalty amount from Rs. 6200/ to Rs. 2128/ (inclusive of interest).The learned JDR has contended that penalty as imposed by the adjudicating authority, could not be reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) for want of any sufficient cause brought on record.Therefore, the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority deserves to be restored.3. But in my view, this contention of the learned JDR cannot be accepted. The perusal of the record shows that service tax for the month of December, 2001, was filed by the respondents in time but the service tax amount was not deposited within the stipulated period. It was deposited 62 days later but along with interest of Rs. 2128/ . The Commissioner (Appeals) while reducing the penalty, had accepted that the cause of delay in deposit of the tax amount, as pleaded by Shri Surinde...

Swaroop thermopack Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC595

1. The appellants are manufacturer of thermocole products. On 24.2.2000, the Central Excise officers visited their factory and conducted stock taking of the finished goods and inputs. It was found that the RG-23A, Part-I register was not maintained for the last 15 days up to 24.2.2000. The RG-1 register was also not maintained correctly and updated. The officers during stock verification of the raw materials and finished goods found shortage of raw materials on which credit of Rs. 31,713 was taken. The officers also found goods valued at Rs. 1,46,752 in excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 register. The officers also found that the goods were cleared by the appellants on some challans without payment of duty. The duty for such clearance was of Rs. 17,492. Some of the finished goods were also found short than those recorded in RG-1 register for which duty determined was Rs. 9,838. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the appellants which was adjudicated by the Addl. Commiss...

indital Tintoria Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT287TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and they were clearing the goods manufactured by them to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) after getting necessary permission from the competent authority. During the month of May 2000, the appellant cleared certain goods to DTA in pursuance to the necessary clearance given by the Development Commissioner in view of Para 9.9(e) of EX1M Policy. Thereafter the appellant; in the month of September 2000 filed revised returns claiming the clearance made in the month of May 2000 under Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Policy and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 8/97. This claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority as well as by appellate Commissioner.3. The contention of the appellant is that in the month of May 2000 they have obtained permission from Development Commissioner to clear the goods to DTA, in view of Para 9.9(b) of EXIM Polic...

Kamal Kumar, Shri Mangal Singh and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC733

1. The above-mentioned appeals have been directed against the common order in appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority who directed the confiscation of the 10 gold biscuits under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed redemption fine for getting the same redeemed, as well as penalties as detailed therein on the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that no presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act that gold biscuits in dispute recovered from Sitaram, appellant on 17.1.98 were smuggled by him or any other appellants from a foreign country to India, as the recovery was effected by the police in the first instance during the course of checking of Bus in which Shri Sitaram was travelling in the area of Ghaziabad and which the police later on, handed over to the Customs officers on the following date i.e. 18.1.98. Therefore, the burden was on the Revenue to prove the smuggled nature of the gold biscuits but ha...

Sneh Silicate Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT58TriDel

1. The issues raised in these appeals are the same. Therefore, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Facts first. M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. has a factory in Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh producing, inter alia, sulphuric acid. During the manufacture of the said acid, waste material arises which is called 'Scrubber Liquor'. This liquor contains sodium silicate and soda ash in small quantities; but for the presence of these items it is only water.Scrubber liquor is a pollutant. Therefore, its disposal is covered by Pollution Control Orders. Disposal also involves expenditure.3. In and around Chhindwara are located some units engaged in the manufacture of sodium silicate. The manufacture of sodium silicate is water intensive. Water is required to be added to adjust the viscosity of sodium silicate. The scrubber liquor, though normally a polluting material, can safely substitute for water in the case of sodium silicate. Thus arises a match between the ...