Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Sipani Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT474TriDel

1. The above appeals arise out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore who has ordered redetermination of assessable value in respect of motor cars manufactured by the appellant-company during the period April, 1994 to December, 1995 by disallowing deductions towards trade discount not passed on to their customers and by loading additional consideration received by them and interest accrued on advances received from their customers, and on the above basis he has confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 8,43,600/- BED and Rs. 3,732/- Cess on trade discount not passed on, and Rs. 4,17,581/- BED and Rs. 1825/- Cess on additional consideration during the period March to December, 1995, duty of Rs. 46,20,488/- BED and Rs. 20,215/- Cess on interest accrued on advances collected during the entire period in dispute. Duty of Rs. 28,536/- BED and Rs. 124 Cess have been appropriated and adjusted against the demand of above-mentioned amount. The Commissioner has also imposed penalties of ...

R.D. Gupta Vs. Dda and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT666; 2005(79)DRJ730

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Mr. R.D. Gupta, employed as Junior Engineer with respondent/DDA, by this writ petition, seeks a direction to the respondent/DDA to reimburse the balance medical claim of Rs. 58,740/- together with interest @ 36% compounded quarterly on account of delay in reimbursing the aforesaid amount. Petitioner, being a Junior Engineer with DDA is covered under the Delhi Development Authorities Medical Scheme, 1988.2. Petitioner was hospitalised on 11.11.2002, for treatment of Umbilical Hernia at Apollo Hospital. Surgery was done at the Apollo Hospital, which is a duly empanelled hospital with DDA. The Hospital raised its bill No.ICS 2002013591 for Rs. 66,625/- for treatment, medicines, consumables and the surgery charges. This is beside the consultancy charges of Rs. 800/- and charges for investigations, amounting to Rs. 2,630/- i.e. in all Rs. 70,055/-. The application for reimbursement was accompanied by Essentiality Certificate, issued by the attending Doctor a...

Mrs. Geeta Monga Vs. Ram Chand S. Kimat Rai and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ781

R.C. Jain, J.Crl.M. 928/200411. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against an order dated 19.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the plaintiff (appellant herein) in a civil suit bearing S.No.106/99; titled as Mrs. Geeta Monga v. Kimatrai and Co. and Ors.. The said suit was disposed of and decreed by the learned Additional District Judge vide a judgment and decree dated 29.9.2000. After the disposal of the said suit, the plaintiff/appellant moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of the offence of perjury by Ramchand S.Kimatrai by making false statement in the Court. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated 19.9.2003.2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that no specific time-frame ...

Mrs. Geeta Kapoor, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC369; [2006]132CompCas369(Delhi); (2005)5CompLJ13(Del); 119(2005)DLT33

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, an appropriate writ for quashing of a First Information Report alleging commission of offences under Sections 392, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been sought.2. The petitioner is an Area Officer with M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.(hereafter called ''The Company''). He avers that one Sh. Ram Gopal Verma (hereafter called ''Borrower'') approached the company for the financing of a two wheeler (Hero Honda Spleandor) Motorcycle. The proposal was accepted; consequently a Hire-Purchase Agreement was entered into. The vehicle was purchased and the monthly installment payable under the arrangement was Rs. 1831/-. The petitioner avers that the entire amount financed bythe company was repayable in 24 equated monthly installments, for which the borrower issued post dated cheques.3. It has been further averred that the borrower did not make timely payments leading to an outstanding amount...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Asha Ram and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT63; 2005(80)DRJ749

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. The writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The writ petition challenges the award dated 12th September, 2001. The only issue which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, reads as under:-'Whether Shri Aasa Ram entitled to be promoted as Assistant Director and if so from what date and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The Tribunal framed the following issues:-'1. Whether the cause of the workman has been legally espoused by the union? (OPW)2. Whether Shri Asha Ram is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act? (OPD)3. Whether Shri Asha Ram fulfills the qualifications as required in recruitment rules for the post of Asstt. Director of Horticulture? (OPW).4. As per the terms of reference.'4. Since no evidence was produced by the petitioner MCD in support of its stand in spite of repeated opportunities on 7.5.2001 the petitioner's evidence was closed. By its unrebutted evidence led on 22.11.1993, the respon...

Ranjit Singh Vs. Hoffland Securities Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed being barred by time the appellant had preferred this appeal. The application for condonation of appeal was declined. Admittedly, the appellant invested Rs. 50,000/- with respondent No. 2 and was given post dated cheques against the principal and interest, on presentation the cheques were dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all the respondents were summoned as accused. Respondent No. 2 gave an undertaking before the Magistrate on 1.3.1999 that he was to make payment to the appellant. It was after this undertaking and the failure of the respondent to make the payment that the instant complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum took the view that mere undertaking of the respondent to make the payment did not imply ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Radhey Shyam

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Limited grievance of the appellant, against impugned order dated 17.2.2003, passed by the District Forum, is against the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded to the respondent for harassment, increase in cost of construction, etc. and cost of litigation, for the failure of the appellant in including the name of the respondent in the draw of lots in spite of the fact that the respondent was the registrant of MIG Scheme of the appellant in Rohini and deposited Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money on 17.2.1981 along with Application Form No. 118546. 2. Admittedly the respondent was informed vide letter dated 19.6.1986 by the Dy. Director of the appellant that his name had not figured in the last three draws of lots for Rohini Residential Scheme and subsequently he was informed vide letter dated 28.3.1988 that his application form along with FDR dated 17.2.1981 was received from UCO Bank in December, 1987 and now his name shall be included in the draw of lots...

Mange Ram Vs. Delhi Jal Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. For no fault of his, the appellant has been asked by the respondent to pay Rs. 4,262 towards water consumption for the duration of as many as 10 years. Though the actual bill at the tariff of Rs. 10 p.m. would have been Rs. 1,200 but instead of sending the bill every month or even yearly, the respondent received bill for ten years by imposing penalty for these years. The complaint of the appellant seeking compensation and quashing of the bill was dismissed vide order 21.4.2003 by the District Forum. It appears that the grievance of the aforesaid bill has not been addressed in correct prospective as the facts of the case demostrate that it was entirely the fault of the respondent and its inaction for such a long period that the bill of Rs. 1,200 was inflated to Rs. 4,268. How could the respondent impose the penalty for non-payment of the bill if no bill had been raised at all. 2. Admittedly, the appellant applied for a water connection in 1987-88 and the water...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT300TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the part of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 10,33,233/- on the inputs the value of which had been written off in the books of account by the respondents but were still lying in their factory premises.2. The learned JDR has contended that since the collaboration of the respondents with M/s. Honda Motors stood terminated, the use of the inputs lying in the factory of the respondents had become impracticable and impossible and as such, they are liable to reverse the Modvat credit of the amount in question, on those inputs even if the same were lying in their factory.4. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned DR for two reasons. Firstly, there is no material on record to suggest that the respondents after termination of their collaboration contract, has stopped the production of their product Two Wheelers and parts thereof.Secondly, ther...

C.C. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC147

1. This appeal has come before us upon remand of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated March 19, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 1423 of 1999. The respondent is a Electricity Board engaged in the generation and distribution of electric power. The dispute in the present appeal is the eligibility of circuit breakers and connected items imported by the respondent to improve their transmission and distribution network. Operative portion of the remand order of the Apex Court reads as under: "Tariff Heading 98.01 applies to all items of machinery required for the initial setting up of a unit or the substantial expansion of an existing unit of, inter alia, a specified power project. The Tribunal appears to have taken the view that "power project" meant only for a project which generated electric power and not a project that transmitted or distributed electricity. The learned Solicitor General, appearing for the Revenue, fairly concedes that 'power project' within the meaning ...