Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

R.K. Churiwala and ors. Vs. Kunj Behari and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR522(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT163; 2005(80)DRJ398

Anil Kumar, J. 1.This appeal is against the order dated 19th October,2001of the Learned Single judge allowing applications for condensation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of deceased Karta of an HUF and another defendant, who was also a coparcener and where other defendants were the HUF and other coparceners, one of them being also the son of deceased karta.2.The respondents had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 against M/S K.D.Churiwala and sons HUF through its Karta M.P.Churiwala who was defendant no.6 in the petition. Besides the said two defendants, the other members and coparceners of said HUF, Shri K.P.Churiwala, Mr.R.K.Churiwala, Mr. Sanjay Churiwala and Mr. Nikhil Churiwala were also imp leaded as defendants in the petition. Shri Sanjay Churiwala is the son of Shri M.P.Churiwala, deceased karta.3.The addresses of all the defendants in the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,1940 were given as 32-J, New Road, Alipore, ...

Capt. P.S. Thapar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT541; 2005(79)DRJ57; 2006(2)SLJ219(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1.By way of the present petition, petitioner prays that mandamus be issued quashing the reports submitted by the enquiry committee on 6.4.2001 and 14.6.2001. Mandamus is also sought for quashing order dated 15.12.2001, by which order the disciplinary authority, considering the report dated 14.6.2001 and agreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry committee imposed the punishment of 'reduction of basic pay to the minimum in the grade without restoration' under the provisions of Air India Employees Service Regulations. Quashing of the order dated 23/29.4.2002 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority has also been prayed for. Further order sought to be quashed is order dated 12/20.11.2002 dismissing another appeal filed by the petitioner to the Secretary and Director Corporation Affairs. Quashing of the letter dated 20/26.12.2002 is also prayed for. By said letter petitioner w...

Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Raj Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT283; 2005(80)DRJ380

R.S. Sodhi, J.1.RC.REV. 37/2004 is directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (for short ''the Controller'') in E 295/2003, whereby the learned Controller vide its judgment dated 28th April, 2004, has dismissed the petition of the petitioner herein under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Controller, are as under : ''Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of aforesaid petition are that petitioner had filed a petition aforestated against the respondent on 4.12.2002. Summons were sent to the respondent as per Schedule III of D.R.C. Act. Thereafter, leave to defend application was filed. The said leave to defend application of the respondent was dismissed and an eviction order was passed against the respondent vide order dated 26.4.2003 passed by then learned Addl.Rent Controller, Ms.Nivedita Anil Sharma. Thereafter, the respondent went in appeal before the ...

Dhingra Construction Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi247; 2005(1)CTLJ57(Del); 116(2005)DLT232; 2005(79)DRJ383

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Rule issued. With consent of parties, the matters have been finally heard.2. These petitions under Article 226 raise common question of law, hence they were heard and are being disposed by this common judgment.3. The petitioners question conditions spelt out in the 'Expression of interest for execution of dense carpet works on annual rate basis' (hereafter called 'the impugned policy' within jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') for 2004-05. The impugned policy was published on 20th May, 2004. It is attacked on ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and that the MCD is estopped, by its previous conduct from insisting upon the eligibility criteria framed in the policy.4. All petitioners are registered contractors with the MCD who claim to have worked for MCD over several years, and successfully executed several dense carpeting contracts (i.e. works in relation to roads and bridges involved in Bituminous Macadam, Asphaltic etc.) The petit...

Oscar Technologies Ltd. Vs. Ms. Komla Varadan

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Vide impugned order dated 30.9.2003, the appellant has been directed to refund of Rs. 47,000/- towards the price of the computer system purchased by the respondent and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment the respondent suffered as the computer did not function properly even for a day. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Relevant facts in short are that the respondent purchased a personal computer from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 47,000/-. Its primary Master Hard Disk conked off within few days of its purchase and the appellant took months for fitting new disk as the replacement was to come from Singapore. In spite of replacement of the disk, the computer did not function properly as there was problem in the software, internet and e-mail. It is alleged that the engineer of the appellant could not rectify the defects and consequently the computer was replaced by a new computer. But the ...

Ram Krishna Vs. Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The solitary controversy involved in this appeal directed against the impugned order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant was rejected, is that whether the medicine prescribed by the respondent-doctor for the treatment of the Cyclodex in the eyes of the appellant was wrongly prescribed and whether it was harmful to the eyes or not. 2. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the prescriptions and the clinical papers attached with the complaint of the appellant were sent to Safdarjung Hospital for expert or second opinion. However, Dr. K.P.S. Malik of Safdarjung Hospital was not in a position to provide any opinion because of the clinical examination of the appellant being sketchy and unrelated. As is apparent from the observations of Dr. K.P.S. Malik he was not aware of the fact whether the medicine known as Cyclodex was prescribed for 10 days or whether this medicine was harmful to the eyes of the appellant w...

Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT500TriDel

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand with penalty on the Company appellant No. 1 and personal penalty on its Director appellant No. 2.2. The issue involved in this appeal relates to denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2001 dated 1-3-2001 to the appellants during the period 2002-2003 for having used the brand name Anil, Hind and AEW on their products submersible pumps which belonged to another person.3. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the factory premises of the appellants was visited by the officers of Central Excise on 1-10-2002 after intercepting their tempo carrying 6 sets of submersible pumps and they were found using the above said brand names on their goods. These brand names, according to the department, belonged to Anil Ku...

Melton India (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC277

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common Order-in-Original vide which the adjudicating authority (Commissioner of Central Excise) has confirmed the duty demand and penalties on them. The duty demand has been confirmed against the company appellant No. 1 for having indulged in the clandestine removal of finished goods (polyester fabrics) during the period 1.5.2000 to 31.8.2000 through certain invoices. The penalties have also been imposed not only on the appellant No. 1 but also on other appellants who were at that time employees.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on record to prove the manufacture and clandestine removal of the goods through 58 invoices and two challans referred in the show cause notice, to various buyers without payment of duty by the appellants and that these invoices were prepared only for getting financial assistance from the bank without there being any movement/clearance of the go...

Leader Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT137TriDel

1. The case relates to discharge of customs duty through DEPB Scrip.The duty demand has been made on the ground that scrips were later on found to have been obtained fraudulently.2. The contention of the appellant is that scrips were obtained by some other party and the appellant had purchased the scrips for consideration. It is pointed out that impugned order has recorded a finding that no fraud has been committed by the appellant in regard to DEPB Scrip. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since no fraud has been committed by the appellant, the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not have been invoked against them.As against this, the learned DR has pointed out that Commissioner of Customs has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Candid Enterprises [2001 (130) E.L.T. 404 (S.C.)]. 3. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides. In the present case, the lower authoritie...

Apex Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT271TriDel

1. Appellant is directed against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appeal is admitted in view of the special circumstances.2. Heard both sides and perused the record. The impugned order has noted that the appellants total clearance of less than Rs. 17 lakhs was within full exemption from central excise duty. Penalty has been imposed only for failure to keep proper central excise accounts. The submission of the appellant is that their unit is not functional and since there is no evasion of duty, penalty is not justified.3. It is not in doubt that no duty was payable by the appellant. In fact their clearances were very small and well within the fully exempted limit. In the circumstances, failure to keep proper account cannot be the result of intention to evade duty. Appellant unit is also in difficulties and is not functional. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed and penalty imposed is set aside....