Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Jagannath Premnath Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the order in original dated 11-2-2004 imposing penalty on the partnership firm and the partner of the firm under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of imposition of the penalty are that the officers of the Marine & Preventive wing intercepted and detained a container which as per documents contained Turmeric powder for export. On further detailed examination it was found that the goods may not be the same as declared in the documents, a representative sample was drawn and sent to Dy. Chief Chemist, Mumbai for analysis.The analysis report of the Dy. Chief Chemist opined that the product in question was an aromatic powder containing sandalwood powder to the extent of 84.3% by weight. The export of these kind of powders are restricted to licence holders only. Further statements were recorded and show cause notice was issued to many persons including the current appellants. The adjudicating authority in his ...

Vidhya Packaging Indus. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25-8-2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on the imposition of redemption fine, penalty and duty demand.2. The relevant facts of the case are; the appellants are manufacturers of twisted and textured yarn. They consumed textured yarn for the manufacture of twisted yarn and availed the benefit of Notification No.4/97 dated 1-3-1997 which exempts the twisted yarn from payment of duty provided the duty is discharged after texturisation of the yarn. The Officers of the Central Excise Department visited the appellants' factory on 5-6-1997 and checked the records. During the scrutiny of the records, they found that around 185.680 kgs. of textured yarn and 2083.840 kgs. of twisted yarn lying on the first floor of the factory unaccounted. On further checking, they found that there was an excess stock of 2742.268 kgs. of twisted yarn in the approved godown not ac...

Prabhakar Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT494; 2005(85)DRJ168

Vijender Jain, J.1. The writ petition was filed, inter alia, by the petitioners, as there were thirteen vacancies of Superintending Engineers (Electrical) in the CPWD. Thirty senior most Executive Engineers (Electrical) who had at least five years' regular service as Executive Engineer (E) were considered and a panel dated 15.1.2002 of thirteen names was prepared including two petitioners. The petitioners had assailed the merit list as the DPC did not follow the criteria of merit but adopted the criteria of 'fit and unfit' which was prescribed by the revised instructions of 8th February, 2002. The grievance of the petitioners was that they had all along been graded as 'Outstanding' and had the DPC followed the criteria in vogue prior to the revised instructions on the subject issued by the DOPT vide their OM dated 8.2.2002, they would have been placed at the top of the panel drawn by the DPC. The respondents took the stand before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that the DPC w...

Anju Takyar Vs. H.C. Takyar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT794

R.C. Jain, J.1. The above-named petitioner has filed this application under Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ''Act'') seeking reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration and for appointment of an Arbitrator. The application has been made with the averments and allegations that a partnership firm by the name and description of M/s Paramount Builders was constituted by following six partners on 28.1.1986:-(i) Late Sh. S.R. Takyar, grandfather of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the father of respondent No. 1 (who died on 28.5.1998)(ii) Sh. Harish Chander Takyar, respondent No. 1(iii) Mrs. Shikha Takyar, respondent No. 2(iv) Sh. J.R. Kochar, respondent No. 3(v) Smt. Shailja Kochar, respondent No. 4, and(vi) Anju Takyar, petitioner2. The petitioner's name appears at Seriall No. 6 in the said partnership deed. The partnership deed dated 28.1.1986, inter-alia contains an arbitration agreement in clause (13), w...

Chandni Chowk Sarv Vyapar Mandal (Regd.) Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT51; 2005(85)DRJ632

ORDERS AND LEGAL PROVISIONSOrders of Supreme Court38. The relevant orders of the Supreme Court are reproduced below:Supreme Court Order dated 02nd December, 2000I.A. No. 355 in WP(C) NO. 1699/1987'The applicants are eligible squatters. They have filed this application praying that they may not be obstructed from carrying on their business at Lal Mandir, New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi till final allotment of alternative site is made. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that this is a non-squatting area. When this is a non-squatting area, neither temporary arrangement or permanent arrangement can be made. The applicants are thereforee given two weeks time to vacate from the place where they are recently squatting and in the meantime if it is not possible to make any final allotment of alternative site according to that, the MCD will make a temporary provision in a non-prohibited squatting area till regular final allotment is made. As and when the said temporary space, in the non-prohibited...

Pfizer Products, Inc. Vs. B.L. and Co. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC294(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. These suits have been filed by the plaintiff-company against different defendants for injunction, damages, passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff claims in different plaints that the defendants are selling products under offending trade marks deceptively similar to the trade marks of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws in the USA and claims to be a global research based pharmaceutical company with world-wide performance which has been acclaimed. The world-wide sales figures are stated to be of nearly one thousand million dollars for trade mark Viagra, and, similarly for other trade marks, the world-wide sales of the plaintiff-company are running into millions of dollars. The common question which arises in all these suits is on account of the valuation done by the plaintiff for Court fee and jurisdiction purposes. Relevant para 42 is as under:The value of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and juris...

Manju Vs. C.M.O., St. Stephen’s Hospital

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is a most unfortunate case. The unfortunate child of unfortunate parents was born on 14.8.1999. He is almost 6 years of age. He was born with following horrible congenital abnormalities: (1) Depressed nasal bridge. (2) Cataract of the Right Eye. (3) Cleft lip, cleft palate. (4) Absent Right Thumb. (5) Right Radius (forearm bone) aplasia. (6) Malformed Right Ear. 2. This appeal arises from allegation of medical negligence on the part of the respondent-Hospital inasmuch as that the appellant was expecting pre-mature delivery after having undergone three consecutive abortions and in spite of the Torch Test performed upon her being positive and clinically suspected to have Intra Uterine Growth Retardation (IUGR), the respondent did not explain that there was a possibility of a child being born with certain congenital abnormalities and, therefore, she consented to have a child. 3. The complaint of the appellant seeking damages and compensation on account of m...

Abhay Raghubir Vs. the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limit ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of mental pain and agony caused to him by the respondent Bank by not reversing the entries of 29.95 and 39.95 dollars in his credit account was dismissed vide impugned order 10.10.2003, passed by the District Forum for the reasons that the appellant failed to show as to what kind of mental agony he suffered because of this lapse on the part of the respondent while on the other hand the appellant had stopped making payment of minimum dues for which the respondent bank sent their officials to receive the same. 2. Feeling aggrieved by this order the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. There is no dispute that the respondent Bank was negligent in not reversing the USD 29.95 and 39.95 respectively and instead of rectifying their mistake they continued raising the bill on the basis of minimum dues and went to the extent of sending their personnel to collect the dues forcibly. This was not...

Lmr International and Another Vs. K.K. Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On the allegation that the computer purchased from the appellant was so defective that it could not function for a day, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 23.11.2002, passed by the District Forum directed to either replace the computer with new computer having same specification and if it is not possible to replace, to refund the amount of Rs. 32,000 paid by the respondent and also to pay Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that only estimate of the computer was given to the respondent and there was no sale of the computer by the appellant to the respondent. The District Forum did not take into consideration the stand of the appellant that the respondent failed to produce any kind of evidence either documentary or oral to show that he had paid Rs. 32,000 to the appellant towards cost of the computer and, therefore, the impugned order has bee...