Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Dharam Pal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Short dispute arising in this appeal is with regard to the identification of property bearing No. 79, Village Khera Dabar. Vide impugned order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the District Forum directing the appellant to reconnect the water supply to H. No. 79, Village Khera Dabar, Delhi and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by the respondent due to non-supply of water and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 2. According to the appellant the actual number of property is 307, Khera Dabar and the water connection given at property No. 79, Khera Dabar was never disconnected. We have perused the impugned order and find that the appellant is confusing number of the house with that of Khasra. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum has after dealing with this contention of the Counsel for the appellant comes to the conclusion that the respondent is in possession of property No. 79 and not in p...

Varanasi ChaIn Industries and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC57

1. The common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together. In this case, the issue is whether drawing of wires from the wire rods amounts to manufacture.2. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Technoweld Industries to submit that this process does not amount to manufacture. The contention of revenue is that during the process of drawing of wire from wire rods the wire of thickness of 8mm was also come into existence which are not exempted from payment of duty. We find that appellants are merely engaged in the drawing of wire from wire rods and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Technoweld (Supra), we find that this process does not amount to manufacture.Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed....

K.L. Strips Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC157

1. Three appeals have been filed before the Tribunal against a common order-in-appeal dt. 22.9.03 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad which in turn has dealt with three orders-in-original.2. The appellants M/s. K.L. Strips Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of shapes and sections availing Cenvat credit. The lower authorities had questioned the eligibility of such availment of credit with regard to certain inputs, eventually disallowing the credit through a quasi-judicial orders-in-original. Being aggrieved by this, the appellants challenged the orders before Commissioner (Appeals), who while passing his order-in-appeal dt. 22.9.03 confined himself to a few invoices. (Invoice Nos. 18, 6, 10 & 4 issued by M/s. Aditya Forging and Allied Inds., Govindgarh), and ignored the remaining matter dealt with in the remaining orders passed by the lower authorities. It is also contended that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not give any direct findings on the issues examined by h...

Metro and Metro Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant seeks interim stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original by which it was held that the benefit of the Notification No. 21/02 (Sl.No. 224 of list 34) cannot be extended to the goods under import. The appellant had classified the goods under CTH 84538000 and claimed benefit of Sl.No. 257 of Notification No. 21/02 (Sl.No. 224 of list 34), which was available to "viewing box for assessing visible damage" for shoes. The Bill of Entry No. 705032 dated 1.6.2004 was for clearance of one "set of X-ray shoe inspection system". The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally, extending the benefit of the said Notification. Subsequently, on the basis of the report of Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai, and after issuing the show cause notice dated 19.8.2004, the benefit of the notification was denied to the appellants and they were required to deposit the different duty amount of Rs. 2,32,114/-.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant co...

Onkar Travels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STT244

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order-in-appeal dated 27-2-2004 wherein the appellate authority has upheld the order-in-original confirming the Service fax & the pending imposed.2. Relevant facts for consideration are that the appellants are registered with the authorities under the category of Air Travel Agent.The appellants had filed quarterly ST-3 returns for the period ending September, 97, December, 97, March, 98, June, 98, &. half year ending June, 99 were filed by the appellant with the jurisdictional Superintendent of Service Tax. All the ST-3 returns as filed, were assessed finally by the Superintendent of Service Tax. A Show Cause notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994, to enhance the assessment, and a allegation of short levy was made on the appellant. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty, on an appeal, the appellate authority upheld the order,...

Bank Of Baroda Vs. Teg'S Musrado Ltd. And Ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC120

1. The appellant-bank instituted suit in O. A. No. 511 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, for recovery of certain amounts. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal by order dated January 13, 2005, dismissed the suit claim of Rs. 2,33,59,138 in TL-I, Rs. 1,14,29,922 in TL-II and Rs. 1,07,18,243 holding that these claims are barred by limitation. However, by the same order, the Tribunal directed to proceed for recovery of Rs. 3,87,50,236 claimed as interest on the bank guarantee invoked and further directed for fixing the case on February 28, 2005, for arguments for recovery of aforesaid amount. It is this order which is under challenge before this Tribunal.2. Mr. Ashok Jagga, learned Counsel for the appellant-bank mainly contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the suit on three counts. According to learned Counsel, the claim of the applicant-bank is secured by equitable mortgage of four properties of the defendants. Initia...

Bhangoo and Company Vs. Mittal and Garg Enterprises and

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC112

1. The present appeal is filed by the auction purchaser aggrieved by the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the DRT') in Appeal No. 6/2005 on 30.3.2005. Before I set out to decide the controversy, few facts which are necessary to be recorded are as under: 2. The 2nd respondent herein instituted O.A. seeking to recover certain amounts, which was decreed. As the judgment debtors failed to pay the amount, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Recovery Officer on the basis of the Recovery Certificate issued under the scheme of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the RDB Act'). The Recovery Officer appointed one Mr. U.K.Khosla, an Advocate, to auction the property and accordingly sale proclamation was issued on 23.9.2004 fixing the Reserve Price at Rs. 1 crore and the auction was fixed for 30.10.2004. Neither the decree-holder nor the judgment debtors objected to the fixing of the Reserved Price at Rs. 1 ...

Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. N.D.M.C. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT695

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2004. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3. The short question in this case is whether the appellant is liable to pay the electricity charges in question under the category of 'domestic use' or under the category 'non-domestic use'.4. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The appellant purchased four flats in Gauri Sadan, Hailey Road, New Delhi bearing Nos. F-101, F-201, E-501 and C-601 at Gauri Sadan, located at 5 Hailey Road, New Delhi. The appellant applied for supply of electricity for domestic use to the respondents. It is alleged that the petitioner's executives/officials travel frequently from various cities in India to the Delhi office ...

D.K. Gupta and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC140; 127(2006)DLT488

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce, to permit the petitioner to avail and settle the account 'Indo Pacific Trade Corporation' under the one time settlement scheme for public sector banks issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 21.09.2003. The petitioner also prayed for a direction that the respondent bank be directed not to initiate legal proceedings against it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a partner of petitioner No. 2, which is a registered partnership firm consisting of petitioner No. 1 and one Lovleen Singhal.3. It appears that the petitioner No. 2 had taken a loan from the respondent bank, but had not repaid the same. Petitioner No. 2 had availed loan facility in two branches of the respondent bank, i.e., at Panchkuiya Raod and Daryaganj, New Delhi. A Settlement was arrived at between the respondent bank and the petitioners in respect of both the br...

AustIn Nichols and Co. and Seagram India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Behl, Di ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC133(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide two interlocutory applications, I.A. No. 999 of 2005 and I.A. No. 1313 of 2005. Both these applications were very hotly contested, in fact much more than I had imagined when the hearing started The applications were heard on 8th, 13th to 15th, 21st, 26th and 27th July, 2nd and 4th August when judgment was reserved.2. I.A. No. 999 of 2005 is an application filed by the Plaintiffs seeking an injunction restraining the Defendants from directly or indirectly dealing in alcoholic beverages or any other allied goods under the trade mark Blenders Pride, while I.A. No. 1313 of 2005 is an application filed by Defendant No.2 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for staying trial of this suit since this Defendant had earlier instituted Suit No. 2105 of 2005 in the District Court at Jalandhar, Punjab (for short the Jalandhar suit) against Seagram . which as per the averments made by the Plaintiffs in this Court, has merged wi...