Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Exide Industries Limited Vs. Jagdish Chander Bawa

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. It appears that the appellant has directed this appeal against the impugned order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the District Forum probably on the erroneous view taken by the District Forum with regard to the directions and guidelines approved by SEBI with regard to sale and purchase of shares. 2. Admittedly appellant issued the shares in question on 31.10.1985. It is alleged by the respondent that corrections and alterations with regard to the number of shares and the dates were made by the respondent without authentication and without countersigning the same. As per SEBI guidelines and directions shares which carry corrections without counter signatures and without proper authentication are bad shares and cannot be sold through exchanges. But according to the appellant no such corrections were made. It is stated by the Counsel that the appellant only re-wrote the number of the shares as the numbers already mentioned were dim and illegible and there was no need ...

C.C.E. Vs. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the MODVAT Credit of duty was available to M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd. on the strength of invoice within was not in their name.2. When the matter was called, no one was present for the respondents.Shri Rajesh Chibber, learned Advocate, has requested for adjournment which is not granted in view of the fact that the matter has already been adjourned earlier twice. I, therefore, heard Shri V. Valte, learned SDR and perused the record.3. One of the invoices, on the basis of which credit has been taken by the respondents, we in the name of M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd., Kota whereas the Credit has been taken by M/s. Goyal M.G. Gases Ltd, Ghaziabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a specific finding, after examining the invoices, that though there was cuting in consignees' address but the same has been authenticated by the same person who has prepared the invoices and the address was changed from Kota to Ghaziabad. The ...

Ellora Mechanical Products Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT376TriDel

1. Heard. The total duty amount involved is Rs. 14,37,684/- with equal amount of penalty which has been confirmed against the appellants for having indulged in the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods during the period August, 1999. The main arguments raised by the Counsel is allegations of removal of goods on loose slips found in the factory of the appellants, has been made which were seized by the Sales-tax Department and no evidence has been collected by the Central Excise officers independently, and as such, the duty has been wrongly confirmed against the appellants. Prima facie, we are unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel at this stage. The loose slips which were found from the factory of the appellants showed the clandestine removal of goods by them. It is immaterial which department of Government took into possession those slips. The slips found in the factory premises provided sufficient evidence along with other evidence for proving the allegation o...

Bimla Vs. Daya Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT208; 2005(79)DRJ170

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 716/2002 is directed against the order dated 17th September, 2004 of the Guardian Judge, Delhi, in G-14/2000 whereby the learned Guardian Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Guardian Judge are as follows:- ''....the petitioner was married to respondent no.1 according to Hindu Customs and Rights on 2.5.86 and one son Amit was born from the said wedlock on 12.10.88 at Military Hospital, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is claimed that in the year 1991 the behavior of the respondent no.1 towards the petitioner became cruel and the respondent no.1 willfully withdraw from the Society of the petitioner and the minor son, and thereafter, filed a petition for divorce before the Hon'ble Distt. Judge, Gurgaon, Haryana bearing HMA No.15/92 which was allowed by order dated 14.1.97 and the decree of divorce was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the sai...

Maha Singh Vs. Shri Anand Singh Mann

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT378; 2005(79)DRJ188

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these Orders I shall decide two Objections that have arisen touching upon the maintainability of the suit. Mr.Rana, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments such as : AIR1936Pat231 , AIR 1956 Hyd 118, : AIR1932All485 , AIR 1926 Ran 71, : [1976]1SCR237 , : AIR1967SC436 , AIR 1977 Kar 173, : AIR1930All446 , AIR 1954 Mad 83, : AIR1977SC1823 , : AIR1918Bom188 , (1908) 35 Cal. 551, AIR 1929 Cal 588, : [1968]1SCR805 : AIR1971MP172 , AIR 1950 P C 68, 1994 (1) CCC 94, : (1998)8SCC623 , : AIR1988All303 , 1994 (4) SCC 396, : 59(1995)DLT667 , 1981 (2) RLR 278, : AIR1979MP153 , 1987 RLR 262, AIR 1987 Del 165, AIR 1995 AP 423, AIR 1992 Del 118, : 67(1997)DLT576 , AIR 1980 Pand H 25, AIR 1956 Pun 230, AIR 1960 AD 535, 1992 DLT 530, : [1960]2SCR253 , AIR 1982 Del 520, : [1964]4SCR409 , : [1971]3SCR734 , AIR 1991 Jan 1, 1997 (III) AD 626, 1991 (3) Del L 350, 1991 RLR 239, : 71(1998)DLT564 , AIR 2000 Del 92, 2004 (1) AD 406. 2. I...

Shri Shivinder Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT468; 2005(80)DRJ433

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Another case of fight over 1 bigha land. Fortunately it relates to its location. Consolidation took place in village Mitraon. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 governs consolidation and repartition of holdings in Deli. Scheme of consolidation framed under Section 20 of the Act required that lands abutting the mottled `Dhasa' Road (also called Najafgarh Road) were to be treated as compact block and holding allotted to the land holder as it is. 2. For record, the scheme aforesaid was not filed by any party along with the pleadings, but copy was handed over in court during arguments. Parties also handed over Aksh Shajra of pre-consolidation khasra No. 421 and 420. Petitioners and contesting respondent being respondent No. 3 had filed certified copy of the Aksh Shajra. It showed a variance in the location of the 2 khasras. One relied upon by the petitioner showed that towards the south eastern side, khasra No. 421 abutted...

Sarojini Market Shopkeeper Association (Regd) and ors. Vs. Union of In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ334

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Rule. Heard for disposal.2. Case of sibling rivalry, Sarojini Market Shopkeepers Association hasbrought the present action being aggrieved by a decision and itsimplementation by NDMC to convert 65 tehbazari sites granted by NDMCto various persons into permanent sites. NDMC decided and commencederection of partition walls, laying concrete roof slabs etc. at the site of thetehbazari, where thadas were covered with asbestosis sheets over ironangles.3. Case of the petitioner is that conversion of the tehbazari site into permanent stalls is contrary to the master plan and zonal development plan for the area in question.4. It is urged by the petitioners that as per the mandate of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, no development can take place, not even by a statutory authority, which is contrary to the Master Plan for Delhi.5. Response of NDMC is that representations were received by allottees of the thadas to the effect that vagaries of nature were impeding their busi...

Rajesh Pal Singh Vs. Prasar Bharati Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT352; 2005(80)DRJ189

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. Petitioner had been employed with All India Radio as a Peon 11th November, 1996. Prasar Bharti Corporation came into being on 23rd November, 1997. Petitioner went on deputation to Prasar Bharti Corporation. It is admitted position between the parties that he continues to be on deputation with Prasar Bharti Corporation. 3. Petitioner's mother was an allottee of quarter no.81-A, Aram Bagh, New Delhi being Type A General Pool Accommodation since she was employed with Director General, All India Radio. Petitioner's mother superannuated on 30th September, 2002. It is also the admitted position that the petitioner had been residing all along with her mother and had not claimed any separate house rent allowance. In other words, upon superannuation of petitioner's mother, he was eligible for allotment of accommodation in his favor. The only stumbling block which came into the way of the petit...

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Adl International Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]127CompCas637(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT107; 2005(79)DRJ477; [2005]59SCL297(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.I.A. 6385/2002 1. The question that arises at this stage of the proceedings is whether the ex parte ad interim injunction orders passed should be confirmed and whether a Receiver ought to be appointed in respect of the suit property. 2. At the first hearing it had been observed by this Court that the plaintiff had supplied the machinery and equipment under the two hire-purchase agreements dated 26th March, 1993 and 30th July, 1993. Under the said agreements the plaintiff delivered the machinery and equipment as detailed in paragraph 6 of the plaint. The total hire-purchase value of the machinery and equipment in the first agreement was fixed at Rs.34,30,892/-. The defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,646/- as earnest money and agreed to pay the balance amount in 13 installments. Similarly, the total hire-purchase value of the machinery and equipment in the second agreement was fixed at Rs.21,56,039/- and the defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.1,88,931/- as earnest money and t...

Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. R.K. Verma

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the conduct of the respondent photographer whose services he engaged for taking the photographs of the marriage ceremony of his daughter more than five years before. Vide impugned order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the District Forum, the respondent photographer has been ordered to deliver the photograph album to the appellant on payment of Rs. 3,350/- against the total bill of Rs. 4,350/-. 2. According to the respondent, the total bill raised by him for preparing the video cassette as well as photo album was Rs. 7,850/- whereas according to the appellant, the balance amount which was due to the respondent photographer was Rs. 3,350/- as assessed by the District Forum. Appellant who is present in person states that he has been all the time ready to pay this amount to the respondent and had even paid Rs. 1,000/- advance to the respondent but the respondent had always been insisting for more money which was not due to him. Since the cl...