Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

R.K. Aggarwal Vs. General Manager, Northern Railways

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Two identical complaints were filed. One by Mr. R.K. Bansal and another one by Shri R.K. Aggarwal seeking compensation on account of deficiency ins service on the part of Railway Department inasmuch as the bogey in which the appellant was travelling there was no water in taps, window shutters of the toilets were lying broken and the seat allotted to him was broken and nails emerging from various places. Ceiling fans were not working properly. The complaint of Mr. R.K. Bansal was allowed vide order dated 3.12.1997 whereby the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- for the inconvenience was awarded to him besides Rs. 200/- as costs of litigation. However, the complaint of the appellant was dismissed merely on the ground that the stand taken by the respondent in R.K. Bansal case was not correct whereas in the case of the appellant, the affidavit filed on behalf of Northern Railway states that the concerned coach was owned by the Eastern Railway and its base depot was Seald...

Arvind Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT570TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed against the common order-in-appeal, vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) have affirmed the order-in-original with a little modification in the amount of duty.3. The amounts of the duties confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are, Rs. 1,85,792/- on account of removal of the goods by the appellants without payment of duty in a clandestine manner, Rs. 73,277/- also on account of the clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the appellants and Rs. 90,224/- on account of non-accountal of the raw materials by the appellants at the time of the visit of the Central Excise Officers.4. So far as duty confirmation of Rs. 73,277/- against the appellants is concerned, the same has not been contested by the Counsel for appellants before us. Therefore, the impugned order in this respect is upheld.5. Regarding the confirmation of duty of Rs. 1,85,792/-, ld. Counsel has contended that the same has been based on the challans detailed a...

Shree Shyam Overseas Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT102TriDel

1. Prima facie, on the question of jurisdiction and absolute confiscation of the goods, the appellants have a strong case.Therefore, stay applications are allowed.2. The appeals also can be disposed of on merit as there is no dispute regarding facts.3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. From the record, it is evident that the goods in question (Nylon fabrics) were imported by the appellant firm. M/s. Shree Shyam Overseas, Delhi from M/s. Show Best Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan, through the port of Calcutta, where the Bill of Entry was submitted and the goods were accordingly cleared from that port, by the Customs authorities. After the clearance of the goods, the firm handed over the same to the Transport Company, M/s. Shri Karni Transport Company, Calcutta, for onward transportation to Delhi. On the way near Varanasi, the truck carrying the goods, was intercepted by the Customs Preventive Officers and the goods were seized on the ground that the quantity of the go...

Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC46

1. The appellant-defendant's oral request to file the written statement (o the amended O.A was declined by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') by the impugned order dated 29.10.2002. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal and this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the application.2. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The impugned order was passed on 29.10.2002, and the appeal has been presented on 3.2.2003. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the application for certified copy of the impugned order was made on 22.11.2002, and that the said copy was prepared by the DRT on 18.12.2002. He also contends that the case file was not traceable in the office of the erstwhile Counsel for the appellant, and that the appellant had also to apply for the certified copy of the order dated 1...

Mitsui and Co. Limited Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT480; 2004(77)DRJ140; (2005)ILLJ896Del

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. FAO 176/2002 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 4.2.2002 of the Senior Civil Judge, ESIC Court in ESIC Petition No. 47/96 whereby the learned Judge has held the petitioner-company (for short 'the company') covered under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Judge, are as under : ''The petitioner-company is having a Liaison Office in Delhi and has filed the present petition through its attorney, Mr. Mazuichi Miwa. The petitioner-company is a trading company incorporated in Japan and has branches and offices all over world including India. One such office is situated at Delhi and is engaged in undertaking liaison work relating to export and import of iron, tobacco, food-stuffs, textiles etc. as per the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The nature of services rendered by the petitioner-Company is restricted only to forwar...

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pawan Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ649

J.P. Singh, J.1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by State against the judgment dated 4.7.1981, giving benefit of doubt to both the accused persons and acquitting them for an alleged offence under section 302/34 IPC. 2. We have heard Shri Ravinder Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Asha Tiwari, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents and have gone though the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.1980 at 9.05 p.m. Balbir Kumar reported at police station Original Road, Delhi that his younger brother Prem Kumar had been stabbed with a knife by some unknown person and was lying in a pool of blood at the spot. Copy of the DD entry was handed over to SI Khem Chand for necessary action, who reached JPN Hospital and recorded the statement of Sushil Kumar, another brother of injured Prem Kumar. Sushil Kumar stated that after closing his shop he was going o Joshi Road for purchasing a betal (Paan) at about 8:45 pm when he heard screams ...

Satbeer Singh Rathi and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT760; 2004(77)DRJ583

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. All petitions pertain to a slum (jhuggi-jhompri) cluster named 'Kanak Durga Colony' at Sector 12, Ramakrishna Puram, New Delhi. The respondents are wanting to relocate the occupants, who resist the relocation. WP(C) No.1813-17/2004 1813-17/2004 was disposed of vide order dated 30.4.2004. The order records:'These Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction that the Respondent shall give thirty days prior notice in writing if they intend to demolish and relocate the jhuggi of the Petitioners at Kanak Durga Colony, Sector 12, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. This Order is passed in view of the stand taken by the Respondent in their Counter Affidavit that as of now no plans for the demolition and relocation of the Jhuggis is on the anvil. It is, however, clarified on behalf of the Respondent that a Survey has been conducted but the Respondents shall comply with the directions of this Court of giving thirty days advance notice. Liberty is granted to the Petitioners to app...

Rukmani Devi and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT58

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. C.M.(M) 558 of 2001 is directed against the judgment dated 25.7.2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.A. No. 282 of 1997, which appeal arose from order dated 11.3.1997 of the Additional Rent Controller in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal and passed an order of eviction in respect of Premises No. A-10, New Gupta Colony, Delhi.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the rent, as demanded, was paid and that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion which need not be interfered with.3. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. As has been held by the Tribunal, service of notice of demand has been proved which is also not challenged before me. The only contention raised is regarding the document, Ex.RW-2/Px (money order) and its effect on documents, Ex. RW-2/A2 to RW-2/P4. RW-2/P4 is a money order coupon received by Amritpal Kaur which si...

Lakhpatrai and Sons Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC409

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Lakhpatrai & Sons, is whether Ball Bearings seized from their premises are liable for confiscation and penalty is to be imposed on them.2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants deal in the business of selling and purchasing of ball bearings; that the Customs officers seized old and used ball bearings of different sizes from their premises on 7.9.99; that the Joint Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 20/2000 had confiscated the seized ball bearing with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine Rs. 1,20,000 and on payment of appropriate Customs duty besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the ground that the Appellants could not produce any evidence for lawful import/acquisition/storage of ball bearings in question; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the impugned Order rejected their appeal on the ground that no bill or other document was produced to show the legal procurement/poss...

Vulcan Electro Controls Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Vulcan Electro Control (P) Ltd. is whether Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods exempted under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 is available to them.2. We heard Shri P M Panwar, learned Consultant, for the Appellants and Shri H C Verma, learned DR for the Respondent. The Appellants manufacture a number of excisable goods which are removed by them on payment of duty. They also undertake job work from M/s. Hi-Tech Gears Ltd. who after carrying out certain other processes cleare those goods on payment of duty. The department has disallowed the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs like rubricating and cutting oils on the ground that these inputs have been used in the manufacture of exempted goods.It has been contended by the Appellants that the goods which are processed by them on job work basis and in respect of which these inputs are used are not exempted goods as the prin...