Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Kewal Kishore Arora

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The above mentioned appeal has been filed by the appellant-DVB assailing the impugned order dated passed by the District Forum -IV, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 38/98 entitled Shri Kewal Kishan Arora v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The appellant is supplying electricity to the respondent. The respondent/complainant purchased a house on 17.6.1996 where the electric meter was already in existence. Prior to this period there were arrears of Rs. 8,880/- towards electricity bill. when respondent applied for transfer of meter in his name, appellant demanded the arrears of bill of electricity used by the previous owner. It is the case of the appellant that the prospective buyer is liable to pay the arrears of electricity bills of the electricity consumed by the previous owner. The stand of the appellant before the District Forum was rejected hence this appeal. 3. Rule 27(b) of conditions of supply of electricity of DESU provides that any person who takes over the premises ...

Sushil Kumar Vs. Deepak Public College

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 13.1.1998 passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 877/1997 - entitled Shri Sushil Kumar v. Deepak Public College. 2. There was an advertisement in the newspaper floated by the O.P. for a three days crash course of MCD Teachers Examination. The O.P. charged Rs. 25,000/- from the students. On the first day of class, which was held on 27.8.1994, the police raided the premises and arrested Cap. A.K. Singh along with Vijay Bhardwaj and Ramesh Dahiya on being found in possession of Hindi question paper of the said examination and thereafter no coaching was held. An FIR was also registered against the aforesaid persons. 3. The complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order solely on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- paid to the O.Ps. inspite of the fact that the respondent was procee...

Baxter (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT415TriDel

1. Heard both sides. These appeals filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., dt. 1-3-01 was denied.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CAPD Fluid and they were importing the Parts and Accessories. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 17/01-Cus. in respect of the accessories and parts imported by them. The benefit was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that CAPD Fluid cannot be considered as equipment.3. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Entry in the Notification No. 17/01, all the medical equipments and other goods falling under Chapter 90 or any other chapter specified in the List 29 are exempted from payment of Customs Duty. The notification further provided that accessories and parts of medical equipments are also exempted from payment of duty. List 29 of the Notification at S. No. 46 specifically covers CAPD flui...

J Vs. Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT478TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of nutritious food (extruded food) falling under Heading 1901.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Before Commissioner, the appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1-3-2000 and the Commissioner after considering the submissions made by the appellant denied the benefit of Notification. The Commissioner of Central Excise held as under : "27. Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 vide entry No. 5 of the table annexed thereto, exempts food preparations falling under chapter sub-heading 1901.19 of Central Excise Tariff intended for free distribution to economically weaker sections of the society under a programme duly approved by the Central Government or any State Government subject to the condition that the manufacturer produces a certificate from an officer not bel...

Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. D.C. of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)92ITD101(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by the Assessee against the dated 30.8.2000 of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 96-97, whereby he directed the AO withdraw the relief of Rs. 16,41,544/- allowed under Section 80-HHC of the Act and recomputed the income of the Assessee.2. The facts and circumstances under which the order under Section 263 came to be passed are that the Assessee which is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tin containers, printed lacquered sheets and trading in tin plates filed it's return of income for the A.Y. 96-97 and the assessment was completed determining total income at Rs. 4,81,33,959/-. There were brought forward loss to the tune of Rs. 5,56,75,547/- The Assessee was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-HHC in respect income after setting off the brought forward loss no deduction under Section 80-HHC was claimed by the Assessee. The Assessee to the statement of total of income appended a Note t...

Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)274ITR157(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30-8-2000 of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act, for the assessment year 1996-97, whereby he directed the assessing officer to withdraw the relief of Rs. 16,41,544 allowed under section 80HHC of the Act and recompute the income of the assessee.The facts and circumstances under which the order under section 263 came to be passed are that the assessee which is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tin containers, printed lacquered sheets and trading in tin plates filed it's return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 and the assessment was completed determining total income at Rs. 4,81,33,959. There were brought forward loss to the tune of Rs. 5,56,75,547. The assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHC in respect of profits derived from the business of export. Since there was negative income after setting off the brought forward loss no deduction under section 80HHC ...

Dr. S.K. Mahajan Vs. Har Piari Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT104; 2004(77)DRJ621

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Suit No. E- 129/2001 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has allowed the application of the widow-landlady on grounds of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act) read with Section 25B as also 14(1)(e) of the Act while rejecting the leave to defend of the tenant.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner herein that the widow landlady can exercise her rights under Section 14D of the Act only once in her life time. In this case, she has already exercised her right under Section 14D qua two rooms in the same building/house. He also submits that the premises were let out for commercial purpose and, thereforee, the ground under Section 14(1)(e) was not available to her. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submits that there is no bar in the exercise of right under Section 14D of the Act qua two premises whi...

M.S. Rehi Vs. Mohinder Kaur @ Daman and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT116; 2004(76)DRJ129

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 14.11.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in E-104/2001 whereby the Additional Rent Controller, while adjudicating on an application for leave to defend a petition filed by the widow-landlady under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (for short 'the Act') declined permission and ordered eviction.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, are that-'the landlady in her petition u/s 14-D of DRC Act submitted inter alias that premises of first and second floor of property no. D-64, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi specifically shown red in the site plan was let out to the respondent several years ago by the husband of the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs.1172/- excluding electricity and water charges for residential purposes and the same is being occupied by the family of the respondent as residence.The landlady also submitted that she is the owner of the premises a...

Dr. Puneet Rana Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT7; 2004(77)DRJ15

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the prescription of a minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as a condition of eligibility for appearance in the entrance test for Post-Graduate studies in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as AIIMS, New Delhi) is so harsh, arbitrary, or discriminatory as to be vocative of Article of 14 of the Constitution of India. The facts in the backdrop whereof, the question arises are few and may, thereforee, be stated at the outset.2. AIIMS, New Delhi conducts a competitive examination for admission to various Post-Graduate medical courses offered by it. The prospectus issued by the Institute, prescribes the following eligibility criterion :-(i) A candidate must possess MBBS degree for MD/MS and BDS degree for MDS courses of a University recognized by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India and must have completed the required ...

Post Master, Post Office, Alipur Vs. Savitri

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2004, passed by District Forum the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The main grievance of the appellant is against the award of interest @ 9% from the date of maturity till the delivery of the cheque for payment to the respondent two. Main contention of the Counsel for the appellant that there is no provision in the rules for payment of interest for the post maturity period, has no substance as it is the duty of the Post Office to make payment of the Bonds/FDRs on its maturity immediately the holder of it approaches it or writes to it, and the retention of the amount beyond the period of maturity is unauthorised and is, therefore, subject to payment of interest by the Post Office or by any other agencies on the bonds and FDRs as the case may be. 3. In the instant case Post Office took more than 6 months in making the payment of the bonds after the date of maturity and the refuge taken by the appellant that it i...