Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. S. Krishan Anand

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The respondent is an Advocate by profession. The respondent applied for allotment of new telephone connection by way of application dated 12.9.1994 and deposited the requisite amount of Rs. 3,000/- for the purpose of sanction/allotment of telephone connection including ensuing service charges. The appellant took about a year for installing the telephone and on account of this deficiency in service the appellant has been directed vide impugned order dated 26.4.1999 to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent and also Rs. 1,000/- towards the cost of litigation. This appeal is directed against the said order. 2. Firstly the contention of the appellant is that it was not a case of deficiency of service as the respondent was not available at his residence whenever the officials of the appellant went there to instal the telephone and secondly that the said delay took place because the terminal pillars were not free and area was declared as Technically Not ...

Navneet Chadha Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT140TriDel

1. In this appeal, the appellant has questioned the validity of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) has confirmed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on him.2. The learned Counsel has raised two-fold contention to assail the correctness of the impugned order - firstly, that after the adjudication of the first show cause notice dated 16-2-1995 vide order dated 4-7-1995, the adjudicating authority became functus officio and thereafter neither any addendum dated 13-3-1996 could be legally issued for making addition of another para in that show cause notice, nor the adjudicating authority had the power to pass the present impugned order in continuation of its earlier order dated 4-7-1995. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law on this ground alone. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to suggest if the non-manifestation of the goods by the shipping transport company in their IGM before the Customs authority was on account of any act/omission or connivance of...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Haldiram India (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC577

1. In these two appeals, filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether the products namely "Badam Summer Sip" and "Thandai" manufactured by M/s. Haldiram India Pvt. ltd. are classifiable under sub-Heading No.2001.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under sub-Heading No. 2108.20 of the Tariff, as claimed by Revenue.2. We heard Shri D.N. Choudhary, learned Senior Departmental Representative and Shri U Raja, Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue and Shri Shekhar Vyas, learned Advocate for the Respondents.The manufacturing process of both the impugned products as described by the Respondents and agreed by the Adjudicating Authority is as under: "A. Thandai Almonds are washed and thereafter soaked in water to ease the peeling off. A mixture of Khus Khus, Magaz, saunf, white pepper and cardamom which are parts of plants are also soaked in water. Thereafter, the peeled almonds and mixture is grind...

Chander Mohan Mehra Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC41

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2004 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Delhi dismissing I.A. 776/2004 filed by the appellant herein for initiating proceedings against the Chairman and Managing Director, General Manager and other officers of the respondent-Bank under Section 340, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the respondent-Bank has filed the reply making false averments. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it is not necessary that the offence should have been proved, and that it is sufficient that if it appears to the Court that an offence as contemplated under Section 340, Cr.P.C. has been committed, to take action. He, therefore, contends that the application could not have been rejected on the ground that action could be taken under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only after passing of the final orders.2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant also refers to the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. It is clear from the reading of the provisions of Section 340, ...

industrial Finance Corporation Vs. Flistex Magnetics Limited

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC42

1. Heard Counsel. This appeal is directed against the orders dated 13.7.2004 and 17.8.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT').The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the 4th defendant in the suit died on 6.10.2003 and on the application to bring on record her legal representatives, Smt. Babli Kohli and Smt. Manju Kathuria had to be served. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that while some representative of Babli Kohli had appeared at first, but later on neither Manju Kathuria nor Babli Kohli had appeared. He also states that the correct address of Smt. Manju Kathuria had to be ascertained, and that the Counsel for the defendants was even directed to furnish the correct address. He also states that while notice had been prepared for Babli Kohli, notice had not even been issued to Manju Kathuria and, therefore, the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT that the appel...

Lucky Star Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Delhi Development Authori ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi428; 113(2004)DLT802; 2004(76)DRJ502

Anil Kumar, J.1. The controversy in this appeal is whether rejection of highest bid of the appellant after about one year four months and then again not returning the earnest money of the appellant for about four months after rejection of his bid by Delhi Development Authority, can be construed to be an act done or purported to have been done in pursuance to the provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 or any rule or regulation made there under so as to attract Section 53B(2) of the Delhi Development Act.2. The relevant facts for determination of this controversy are that the respondent held an open auction on 25th July, 1974 for sale of a cinema plot no.70, Nehru Place, Kalkaji, New Delhi for grant of perpetual lease hold rights. The highest bidder had to pay 25% of the bid amount towards earnest money in cash or in the form of bank draft at the fall of hammer. The balance amount had to be paid within 120 days from the date of issue of communication for the acceptance of the bid.3. T...

Surinder Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi90; 113(2004)DLT754; 2004(76)DRJ478

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants who were plaintiffs in the main suit. The said suit, which was registered as Suit No. 153/1997, was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants claiming that the appellants are tenants of Smt.Krishna Behl, defendant No.4, in respect of structures standing on Khasra No. 444/394/65-66, village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Delhi. It is alleged that they are tenants in respect of the said property since 1968 onwards and that they have been carrying on business of Kabari from the said property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.3-Delhi Development Authority demolished the structures raised by the plaintiffs without any notice for which a civil writ petition was filed in this court which was, however, dismissed vide order dated December 11, 1997 on the ground that the writ petition gave rise to the disputed questions of facts. A liberty was granted to the appellants-plaintiffs to take recourse to the civil co...

V.P. Dahiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT820; 2004(76)DRJ491

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay higher rate of pension to the petitioner by counting full pre-commissioning service and also adding weightage of 9 years towards qualifying service for pension.2.In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties and to answer the issue that falls for our consideration, a brief sum up of the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is set out hereafter. 3.The petitioner was enrolled as combatant Airman in the Indian Air Force on 13.11.1964. In the aforesaid capacity, the petitioner served up to 5.9.1970. thereforee, the petitioner had a total of 5 years 297 days as Airman. The petitioner was granted a Short Service Commission on 5.9.1970 and he worked in that capacity up to 3.10.1980, when he was released from the Army in the rank of Captain. The petitioner thereafter was given pension by the respondents computing his qu...

Om Parkash S/O Shri Rewati Parshad Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Th ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT759; 2004(76)DRJ444; [2005(104)FLR253]; 2005(3)SLJ14(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner was working as a conductor with the Respondent. He has challenged an order dated 13th January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III in O.P No. 17/96 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). 2. On 4th June, 1992, the Respondent's staff consisting of Roshan Lal, Traffic Inspector, Hari Singh, Traffic Superintendent, Raj Kumar and Satyarth Prakash, Assistant Traffic Inspectors boarded the bus in which the Petitioner was working as a conductor. On checking the passengers and tickets, it is found that the Petitioner had collected fare for 14 1/2 tickets, but had not issued them. When the cash was counted it was found that it was in excess by one rupee. On this basis, a report was furnished by the Inspectors and a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 15th June, 1992 alleging contravention of the provisions of clauses 6 and 7 of the Executive Instructions / Duties of Conductors read with para 19(b)...

Shri Vishal Anand Vs. Smt. Bimla Anand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT850; 2004(76)DRJ483

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is filed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No.56/2002.2. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge recorded his findings on the preliminary issue, on the basis of which it was also held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed. The said suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff as against the respondents, who were arrayed as defendants seeking for a decree for specific performance of the contract. In the plaint filed of the present suit, cause of action for filing the suit has been stated thus:'12. That the cause of action arose in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, firstly on 06.05.2002, when the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff mutually and orally agreed (that) the Defendant No.1 would Sell the suit property to the Plaintiff in lieu of the consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and acting on...