Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Vijay Chandela Vs. Cable Sales and Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT694; 2005(79)DRJ550

Manju Goel, J.Crl. M.A. 85/20031. Application is considered and allowed. Petition is restored to its original number.+Crl. Rev. P. No. 984/20022. The petitioner, Vijay Chandela seeks setting aside the order of 29.10.2002 whereby an application for discharge filed by him was dismissed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Delhi. The Complaint against the petitioner was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in which the cheque in question was issued on behalf of the accused No. 1 company. The petitioner alleged that he was merely a Manager of the company and was not liable to be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Memorandum of Association and the account opening form of the bank to show that one R.K. Jain and one Neelam Jain had been responsible for the conduct of the business of the company respondent No. 1. The question whether the petitioner was responsible for the affairs of the comp...

Ramesh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT683; 2005(79)DRJ463

Manju Goel, J.1. Although the revision petition was fixed for hearing on 25.1.2005 it is taken up today on account of Crl. Mis. No. 3/2005 for prepaymentof the date and for disposal of the Crl. Mis. No. 1473/04 for bail and suspension of sentence. In the meantime, an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has also been filed for compounding the offence.2. The revision petitioner, Ramesh @ Pappey, was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 326 IPC by the court of M.M. and the conviction was upheld in appeal by the court of Sessions. As per the two judgments the petitioner on 10.11.1988 despite being warned by the father of the victim proceeded to burn the crackers in the courtyard where children were playing and the victim girl aged 5 years was sleeping on a cot and threw a burning cracker on the victim thereby injuring her left eye. The victim lost her eye sight in her left eye. After examining the witnesses the learned trial court convicted the accused and after hearing the a...

Attar Singh and Bros. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi188; 117(2005)DLT103; 2005(80)DRJ23

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the Office Memo No. DGW/CON/156 dated 17.8.2001, by which the exemption from deposit of lump sum earnest money was withdrawn by the respondent. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus for revalidation of its empanelment as Class II (B&R;) in Delhi Region for a period of five years w.e.f. 1.12.2000 and not up to 30.11.2001, as communicated vide office order dated 31.8.2001.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gopal Narain Aggarwal in support of the writ petition. Mr. Aggarwal submits that petitioner has been a registered second class contractor with CPWD in the category of (Buildings and Roads) since 1983. Petitioner is sought to be denied revalidation for a period of 5 years, which was the period of revalidation contemplated without any just cause. It is urged by the learned counsel that petitioner had...

Atul Maini Chopra Vs. Adarsh Bhalla

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT593

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J. 1. Heard. The plaintiff has, in para 4 of the plaint, clearly raised a plea that the suit property was purchased Benami in the name of defendant No. 1 out of funds provided by there father deceased Lt. Col. K.C. Chopra. Para 4 may be extracted at this stage for easy reference:That Lt. Col. K.C. Chopra had paid the amount to the defendant No. 1 for the purchase of property bearing No. D36-A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and the property was purchased in the name of defendant as a Benami and the real owner was Lt. Col. K.C. Chopra and the deceased had invested huge amount for the construction of the aforesaid property and the deceased has allowed the defendant to stay in the aforesaid property as licensee.'2. In the present application the plaintiff seeks to introduce an amendment and to add paras 5A-L. A reading of the proposed amendments would show that the same are meant to only elaborate and elucidate the plea to Benami already raised in the plaint. The proposed ame...

Super Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(103)ECC149; 2005(186)ELT49(Del)

ORDER1. Notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 accepts notice.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length.3. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25-10-2004. The application was filed by the petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit of the Central Excise duties amounting to Rs. 2,76,48,219/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lacs. Various grounds were taken by the assessed before the Appellate Tribunal. A direction was passed for deposit of Rs. 20 lacs as pre-deposit to the hearing of the appeal. It was treated to be sufficient compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The matter was remanded. The Assessing Officer again re-adjudicated the matter and again confirmed the duty of Rs. 2,76,48,219/- against which the appeal was filed. In the appeal the Appellate Tribunal has directed the Petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs...

K. Lall Vs. Sam Turbo Industry Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant for replacing of water purifier purchased by him from the respondent which was found to be defective, was dismissed vide order dated 17th of September, 1999 passed by the District Forum, on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that he had entered into an annual maintenance contract after the expiry of guarantee period. So much so, a cost of Rs. 100/- was also imposed upon the appellant on account of the complaint being mischievous. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Admittedly, water purifier was purchased by the appellant on 6.8.1996 for Rs. 6,368/- but according to the appellant it was of inferior quality, as from day one it did not function properly. The main fault occurred on 29th of December, 1997 i.e., after the guarantee period was over and he was asked to enter into annual maintenance contract on 7th August, 1998 on paying Rs. 950/-. He was under the impression that the contract was f...

Ginvic Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC475

1. Appellants manufacture alloy steel forged products. They are sending steel scrap to the job workers for converting it into alloy steel ingots. In the show cause notice, it was alleged that the appellants have not availed benefit of modvat credit under Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules., therefore, they could; not have sent scrap to job worker under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for conversion into steel ingots. Steel ingots are final products and leviable to duty. Accordingly duty of Rs. 6,05,871 on steel ingots manufactured by job worker was demanded from them. The case after adjudication, reached up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its Order No.94/2002-B dated 21.2.2002 remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to furnish a copy of the Panchnama under which the said show cause notice is alleged to have been affixed at the gate of the appellant's factory and then adjudicate the matter afresh on all aspects in accordance with law....

Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT184TriDel

1. M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd. has filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 239/2004 dated 28.6.2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 3,40,151/- as they had not produced the rewarehousing certificate within the time limit specified in Rule 156A(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri R. Krishnanan, learned Advocate, submitted that out of the total duty confirmed, the Appellants are not disputing the duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,363/- which has also been paid by them and has not been taken into consideration while confirming the duty under the impugned Order. He, further, submitted that the goods involving duty amounting to Rs. 38,432/- had been cleared by them without payment of duty to the hospitals in respect of which there is no requirement of producing the re-warehousing certificate; that the Commissioner (Appeals) himself has not confirmed such demand in his earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 964/2001 dated 21.11.2001; that accor...

Marble Art and Magra Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC585

1. These appeals are directed against orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise extending the period for issue of show cause notice by six months in respect of seized goods. Both the orders are in similar terms. Order in respect of M/s. Marble Art is reproduced below : "In exercise of the powers vested in the undersigned under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on being satisfied that additional time is required to complete the investigation, the undersigned, hereby extends the period of issue of show cause notice by six months in respect of seizure of 866.03 sq. Ft. of Marble tiles and 1910.66 Sq. Ft. of Marble tiles and 1910.66 sq. mt. Of marble slabs found in excess in the factory premises of M/s. Marble Art, D-26, Sec-11, Noida effected on 19.08.03." 2. The claim of the appellant is that seized goods are liable to be returned to their owner in case show cause notice is not issued within six months or period for issuance of show cause notice is not extended under a ...

Satia Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT320TriDel

1. Heard. Through the present ROM application, the appellants have sought the recall of the impugned final Order on the ground that no findings has been recorded on the question of interest and transportation charges, although arguments were addressed on these issues also. This very ground has been reiterated by the Counsel in the arguments before us.2. The learned SDR has, however, contested this ground and contended that relief regarding the interest and transportation charges deduction must be deemed to have been disallowed, even if there are no findings to this effect in the Order.4. We find that during the course of arguments on merits in the appeal, the issues regarding the interest and deduction of the transportation charges were raised by the Counsel. But the same appears to have been not dealt with in the impugned Order. This mistake appears on the face of the impugned Order. The appellants deserve to be re-heard on the question of interest and availability of deduction on ac...