Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amaresh Kumari and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ538

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.1990 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Suit No. 385 of 1986 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,81,000 together with 9 per cent interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.2. The facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are as follows:The petitioners (claimants herein) have filed this petition against respondents for grant of compensation on account of death of Yogender Singh Narwat, husband of petitioner No. 1, in an accident that took place on 12.2,1986 at about 9.30 p.m. on Gurgaon Road Centaur Hotel. It is stated that the deceased was driving scooter No. HRV 3230 when he was struck by the offending vehicle, i.e., the car bearing No. DHX 8515 driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently which came from behind at a fast speed and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.The deceased was a young man of 28 years of age. He wa...

Rakesh Bedi Vs. Air India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005(104)FLR38]

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner Rakesh Bedi, a Sr. Traffic Assistant working with Air India, was issued a charge-sheet on 29.7.1996, accusing him of misconduct and breach of Standing Order. The of the charge was habitual absence without leave for extended periods of time, wilful insubordination subversive of discipline. An Inquiry Committee was constituted. Repeated adjournments were sought on medical and other grounds. Inquiry Committee after considering the entire record, including the explanation, as furnished by the petitioner submitted its report. A copy of report was sent to petitioner. This was followed by a show-cause notice, proposing penalty on petitioner. Petitioner replied to the same. Respondent vide its order of 12.5.1998 meted out the punishment of 'Dismissal with retirement benefits in full'.Respondent-Air India Limited had also sought approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act from the National Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, since petitioner was a p...

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Munna Lal Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is a manufacturer of tyres. Vide order dated 5.5.2004, passed by the District Forum it has been directed to replace tyre purchased by respondent No. 1 with a new tyre and with a fresh warranty on accepting the claim of the respondent that the tyre was having manufacturing defect. The stand taken by the appellant was that since there was nail penetration in the tyre which could have damaged side wall and since there was no other material on the record to arrive at the conclusion that the tyre did not have any manufacturing defect the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 2. We have perused the impugned order and found from the record that the side wall of the tyre was bulging which means it was bigger than its size. Nail penetration only causes such a damage to the tyre which does not amount to manufacturing defect but if the tyre bulges from the side wall it definitely suffers from manufacturing defect. If there was nail penetration it shoul...

Raghavendra Rao Vs. Director General, Deptt. of Post

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant booked a money order on 23.5.2002 for Rs. 300/- for onward transmission to his sister. But the same was returned and could not be paid at Hyderabad due to wrong address typed at VSAT Centre of the respondent. For this deficiency and carelessness the respondent has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- besides the return of the amount of money order. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The object of compensating a consumer on account of deficiency in service is not to make a person unjustly rich. It is only to compensate a person for mental agony and harassment he suffers. Not only the appellant was paid back the amount of the money order but also awarded compensation of Rs. 500/-. He should have remained satisfied with this order because the respondent has been sufficiently penalised for typographical error in typing address of the person to whom the money order was sent. The...

Cce Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC485Tri(Delhi)

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of Plastic Closure, which are used as caps to the plastic bottles.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondent have not filed any declaration in respect of plastic closures, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of modvat credit.4. We find that in the declaration filed under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules respondent specifically declared Pet Preform for availing the credit. The bottles are used for packing of the aerated water and these plastic closures are used as caps to the plastic bottles. As the appellant declared in the declaration the "Pet preform" therefore, the caps being parts of the bottles are entitled to the benefit of modvat credit. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected....

Cce Vs. National Steel Inds. Ltd., Shri

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC705

1. These are 3 appeals filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.128-130/2003 dated 23.4.2003 by which the Commissioner-(Appeals) has set aside the penalties imposed on National Steel Industries Ltd. and others.2. Shri V. Valte, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. National Steel Industries Ltd. manufacture C.R. coils/Galvanised sheets; that they are engages in trading activity with M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co., Ghaziabad; that they were issuing Central Excise invoices to Mahabir Prasad & Co.; that a show cause notice dated 7.4.2000 was issued to the Respondents for imposing penalties as Mahabir Prasad & Co. were taking credit for passing the same to their customers on the strength of fake invoices issued by National Steel Industries Ltd.; that the Additional Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 36/2002 dated 31.10.2002 imposed penalty on all the three Respondents; that the Additional Commissioner, however, did not impose any penalty on M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co.; that o...

Vadehra Furnishers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT500TriDel

1. M/s. Vadehra Furnishers and Others have filed these appeals against the demand of Central Excise duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Central Excise), under the impugned Order-in-Original No.46/2001, dated 10-12-2001.2.1 Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellant No. 1, M/s. Vadehra Furnishers, having two factories in Okhla Industrial Area, are engaged in manufacturing of wooden furnitures and wooden articles; that they also take on contract the civil construction, interior decoration and like activities at site; that such job may include bringing into existence in the hotel room or in the office room of the corporate sector, the cupboards, storage racks, work stations, counters, etc. At the outset, he mentioned that the Appellants are not contesting the amount of Rs. 77,500/- in respect of M/s. Bharat Soka Gakkai and out of Rs. 38,23,693/-, in respect of M/s.Ericsson, the Appellants are contesting only in respect of Rs. 22.40 lakh. Accordingly, ...

Gopal Krishna Joshi and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC121

1. This is an appeal by defendants 4 to 6 in O.A. 371/98 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants 4 to 6') before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the final Order dated 26.7.2001 passed by the DRT, in favour of the 1st respondent-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank).2. The respondent-Bank filed the said O. A. against six defendants (namely, respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are defendants 1 to 3, and hereinafter referred to as the respondent-defendants I to 3 and appellants herein who are defendants 4 to 6) for the recovery of Rs. 88,56,535.16 with interest thereon @ 17.34% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of O.A. till recovery. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final Order dated 26.7.2001, and ordered that the respondent-Bank is entitled to recover this amount from the appellant-defendants 4 to 6 and the 1st defendant-company with interest @ 6% per annum from the...

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Fednav Asia Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR90(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT428; 2004(76)DRJ389

R.C. Jain, J.1. Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) has filed this application under Section 34 read with Sections 13(5), 16(5), 28(1A) and 28(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ''Act'') , for setting aside the majority award of the Arbitral tribunal dated 30.8.2001. The relevant facts which may be noted for the disposal of the present application/objections are that SAIL entered into a Charterparty contract dated 14.6.1995 for the carriage of cargo of coking coal in bulk on board, the Vessl m.v. ''Blest Future'' from Queens Land, Australia to the port of Visakhapatanam or Paradeep in India, at the Chatterers option and on terms and conditions as set out in the said Charterparty. The vessel carrying the cargo arrived at Visakhapatanam Port of 25.7.1995 and discharge of cargo was commenced at 15.30 hours on 09.08.1995 because the vessel could not be berthed earlier on account of non-availability of berth during the interterm period. Discharge of cargo was com...

Kusum Yadav and ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT390; 2004(77)DRJ3

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the non-issuance of admit card for the examination for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) under respondent No.2/Govt of NCT of Delhi and respondent No.3/MCD. Petitioners' case is that they had duly sent by post the completed forms at the Post Box address given. As the application had to be sent to a address of Post Box Number, there was no question of petitioners getting acknowledgment of the same. However, in support of their case that the application had been duly sent, petitioners have urged that they had purchased postal orders well before the last date and the photocopies of the said postal orders have been filed with the writ petition to establish their bona fides. I find merit in this submission. The factum of purchase of postal orders coupled with the statement on affidavit raises a presumption in their favor. 3. Vide order dated 10.10.2002, res...