Delhi Court March 2004 Judgments

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Col. Gurcharanjit Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of district Forum (East), Sainik Enclave, Delhi, dated 7.12.2000, passed in Complaint Case No. 262/1999, entitled Col. Gurcharanjit Singh v. The Finance Officer, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, before the District Forum, was that he being the registered consumer of electricity through K. No. JM 611 1421115, had received a bill for August, 1999 showing arrears of Rs. 1,151.33 whereas the earlier bills had been duly paid by the respondent. Furthermore, the bill in question had been raised by the appellant on provisional basis and did not reflect the actual meter reading. Accordingly, the respondent had approached the concerned officials of the appellant for the correction of the said bill. But since the appellant failed to rectify the same the respondent was forced to deposit the disputed bill as well as the bill for the month of September, 1999. The respondent even thereaft...

G.D. Malhotra Vs. Lizu Barbara and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The complainant has filed a complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had engaged services of the O.Ps. in the year 1990 for constructing a house on the plot belonging to him bearing No. A-12, Sector 40, NOIDA. As agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties, the O.Ps. were to construct one room, one kitchen, one bath room and boundary wall on the plot in question as per terms and conditions as detailed in Para 3 of the complaint. O.P. No. 1/Mr. Lizu Barbara had assured the complainant that he would personally be supervising the work and that the same would be executed to his entire satisfaction through his concern M/s. Krishna Builders and Developers/O.P. No. 2 which is based at NOIDA. O.P. Nos. 3 and 4 being partners of O.P. No. 2 were to carry out the constructi...

Om Gupta and Another Vs. Pushpa Builders Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The case of the complainants, in the present complaint, in nutshell is that the complainant had booked a showroom measuring 120 sq. ft. on the upper ground floor of the building known as Pushpa Apartments-III, proposed to be built on Plot No. 44-A, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad. The O.P. at the time of booking represented that it would be a corner showroom, having a total sale price of Rs. 94,000/- inclusive of an extra amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of the same being a corner showroom having two sides open. The complainant accordingly paid the initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 24.6.1998 and thereafter continued to deposit instalments as and when demanded and in all paid a total amount of Rs. 85,000/- towards the price of the showroom so booked. It is, however, the case of the complainant that the O.P. has committed fraud on the complainant, inasmuch as on a visit to the site of construction, the complainant found that the showroom in question...

D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd. Co. Vs. M.P. Dhingra

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. Revision petitions from serial Nos. 1 to 139 listed above are directed against order dated 24.6.2003 and Revision Petitions from Serial Nos. 140 to 172 are directed against order dated 25.7.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the above mentioned petitions the same are being heard together with the consent o the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents/respondents in person/A/Representative of the respondents, who were present before this Commission on 29.1.2004 and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the respondents named above had filed separate complaints before the District Forum which were decided by the learned District Forum vide common order da...

Jbm Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT363TriDel

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground that the refund claim is time-barred, as there was no order for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that appellant failed to show that Burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer, therefore, the refund is hit by the principles of unjust enrichment.3. The contention of the appellant is that they are manufacturing LPG cylinder and they were supplying to the oil companies under a contract and there is a price variation clause in the contract. Based on these, appellant made a request to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector vide letter dated 26th March 1999 for treating the assessment as provisional till the finalisation of the price. The contention of the appellant is that on this request, revenue has not taken any action. On finalisation of the price, the appellant filed a refun...

Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC595

1. The appellants were served with a demand of Rs. 90,47,172 which was confirmed against the appellants under Section 11A of the Act, by invoking the extended period. Penalty of equivalent amount was imposed and also interest was demanded by the Commissioner in the adjudication order which is impugned before us.2. The appellants manufacture stainless steel flats (SS flats). The appellants cleared the said product viz. SS flats to several independent customers as well as to 8 declared consignment agents (C.As.). The duty has been paid on the basis of normal price, declared under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Central Excise Rules). Out of the 8 consignments agents located at three different places in respect of certain consignments cleared to one C.A., namely, Ram Kumar, Kishan Kumar (RK KK) during the period of 5 months (Feb.1997 to June 1997)", it was revealed, that the appellants realised additional consideration over and above the declared price, covering the sale of ...

Shri J.P.S. Bhandari Vs. Shri B.B. Mishra, Director General, Cisf

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT432; 2004(73)DRJ589; 2004(3)SLJ323(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner filed civil writ petition bearing No. 427/1984 seeking quashing of the letter dated 08.07.1982, which proposed to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list for the year 1977 since, according to the petitioner, he was appointed in the year 1970 and his seniority was liable to be fixed from the date of his initial appointment. The writ petition was allowed by the Order dated 04.10.1999 and the impugned letter dated 08.07.1982 was quashed. The respondents were directed to assign the petitioner proper place in the seniority list on the basis of his date of appointment in service in the rank w.e.f. 16.05.1970 and giving him consequential benefit in accordance with his rightful place in the seniority list.2. An office order dated 22.02.2000 was issued on behalf of the competent authority of Central Industrial Security Force ( for short, `CISF' ) in pursuance to the aforesaid Order and the petitioner was assigned fresh seniority against t...

Y. Sharma Vs. Anup Ahuja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT941

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Short question involved for determination in this petition is whether the accused is entitled to move the Magistrate for dropping the proceedings in a complaint case even if the process of summons has been issued against him. Identical question arose before this Court in Crl. M(M) 2816/2003= : 106(2003)DLT527 , M/s Prakash Industries Limited v. State and Ors., and was answered in the affirmative. This proposition of law came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in KM. Mathews v. State of Kerala, I (1992) CCR 316 (SC)=1992 (1) SC 217 and answered as under:'It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried, it is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The ...

Kiran Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT440TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the correctness of the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in last para that the protest lodged by the appellants in the third appeal before him will be in force till earlier two refund claims of the appellants are allowed, has been challenged.Rest of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged before me.2. The appellants have made written submissions and prayed for decision on merits. I have gone through those submissions and heard the learned JDR.3. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants submitted the protest letter dated 15-10-1999 to the Deputy Commissioner that they would be paying duty under protest from 15-10-1999, but it was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) even has not denied this fact. The Dy. Commissioner was duty bound to accept the protest letter of the appellants indicating their intention to pay the duty under protest and the same could no...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Harcharan and Brothers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT454TriDel

1. In this appeal the Revenue has challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and set aside the duty demand and penalty against the respondents as determined by the adjudicating authority.2. The learned SDR has contended that there is ample evidence to prove the clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty during the period in question (1-4-1994 to 30-9-1994) by the respondents and the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly ignored the same. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the case has been built against the respondents for evasion of duty by clandestine removal of the goods during the period in dispute mainly on the basis of the documents seized by the Income Tax authorities from th...