Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Ralli Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.D.M.C.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ382(Del); 126(2006)DLT703

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed for quashing the tender notice issued by the respondent/NDMC dated 19.9.2005. We are informed that the tender process has already been completed and in any case we do not find any illegality in the tender notice dated 19.9.2005. Hence, we reject the writ petition so far this prayer is concerned. 2. Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for refund of his security amount Rs. 7,25,000/- deposited with the NDMC. The NDMC did not refund the amount because it was said that the petitioner should first take possession of the property and pay the license fee in advance. The petitioner was reluctant to take possession of the premises because it was not remeasured as per the tender notice. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the amount of security has to be refunded by NDMC to the petitioner because no concluded contract had come into existence. 3. It may be mentioned that by an order of the NDMC date...

Smt. Sharada Rani Vs. Sh. Ganga Ram Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC570

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 11.07.2005, this court had allowed the application of the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 seeking leave to defend in this summary suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 19,00,424/- and interest thereon based on a cheque issued by the defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff. However, this leave to defend was subject to the defendants 1 and 4 depositing a sum of Rs. 19,00,424/- in this court within a period of four weeks from the date of the order, i.e., 11.07.2005. The said deposit has not been made. It appears that the defendants had filed an appeal in respect of the said order of 11.07.2005 being FAO(OS) 300/2005. That appeal has also been dismissed by an order dated 26.09.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this court. Today, nobody appears on behalf of the defendants. The position, thereforee, that obtains now is that the leave granted to the defendants 1 and 4 no longer survives in view of the fact that the condition upon which it was gra...

Mukesh Mittal Vs. Seema Mittal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi145; 125(2005)DLT566; I(2006)DMC23; 2006(86)DRJ102

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the orders dated 10th November, 2004 granting interim maintenance to the respondent/wife by the petitioner/husband. The judgment was delivered on 6th June, 2005 after being reserved by the order dated 23rd May, 2005.2. The petitioner filed a review petition in this Court which is recorded in the order dated 9th September, 2005 allowing the review petition as follows:-'There is merit in one of the pleas raised by the petitioner in this application that on 23rd May, 2005 while reserving the orders, this Court has directed the parties to exchange offers for settlement and the case was listed for orders on 20th July, 2005. When this Court pronounced orders on 6th June, 2005, this fact had escaped the attention of this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 6th June, 2005 is set aside. The review petition and the delay application stand allowed and are disposed of accordingly.CM(M) No. 62/2005To await the respons...

Eastern Book Company and ors. Vs. Mr. Deepak Kapoor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT48; 2006(32)PTC84(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Mr Surinder Malik (plaintiff No. 3 and on behalf of the plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2) and Ms Priyanka (Director of the defendant No. 2 as also on behalf of the defendant No. 1) are present in court and they state that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. They have also stated that the amicable settlement has been reported to the court by the counsel for the parties and the same is being made part of this order. They stated that they have fully understood the contents of the settlement and are responsible for the settlement. They undertook full responsibility acting on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their respective companies.2. In the suit, the claim of the plaintiffs is that their Copyright in the head notes, short notes, editorial notes and the copy-edited text of the judgments of the Supreme Court as published in their 'Supreme Court Cases' (SCC) Journal has been infringed by the Defendants.3. The defendants have stated before this court th...

Subhash Chand Vs. N.D.P.L. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT185; 2006(86)DRJ167

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule D.B. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition inter alias challenges Clause 8.2.1 of the tariff Order of 2004-05 and 2005-06 of tarrif schedule issued by the respondent No. 1 being ultra virus to the Constitution of India, as well as seeks the quashing of the bill dated 31st October, 2005 for a sum of Rs. 8,07,416/- raised against K. No. 32204133472 on the basis of speaking order dated 1st October, 2005.3. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/NDPL submits as a preliminary objection that this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should have availed of the appellate remedy provided under Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which reads as follows:-'111. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.--(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer under this Act (except under Section 127) or an order made by the...

ishwar Chandra Dutta and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT608

Vikramajit Sen, J.CM No. 4632-33/2005 4632-33/2005 in WP (C) No. 17527-28/20041. At the commencement of argument I have asked counsel for the Petitioner whether he intends to oppose these applications. They have been vehemently opposed. Counsel for the Applicant drew my attention to the prayers in the Writ Petition which are calculatedly against 96 persons who have already been granted allotment, and are members of the Intervenor. On my further query of how a Writ Petition can be issued against a person who is not a party thereto, counsel for the Petitioner concedes that the applications may be allowed.2. The applications are allowed. WP (C) No. 17527-28/2004 2. After hearing counsel for the parties I understand the grievance of the Petitioners to relate to the failure of allotment of shops on terms identical to those 96 persons, whose eligibility was forwarded by the Screening Committee of the Government with the assistance of the EPDP Association. The criteria for conforming eligibil...

D.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syrus Marketing and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC367; 128(2006)DLT60; 2006(86)DRJ779

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application for proceeding against the respondent as it is alleged that the respondent has committed civil contempt insofar as the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1997 is concerned which was passed in suit No. 2200/1997. Essentially what the petitioner has alleged is that the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12.41 lacs and a cheque for that amount has also been handed over to the petitioner. The same was part of the compromise which was arrived at between the parties and which formed the subject matter of the said judgment and decree. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that cheque has not been honoured as a result of which the judgment and decree has been violated. He also referred to the application for compromise which was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 and was marked as Exhibit C-1 in the said suit.2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/alleged contemnor states that there ha...

Controls and Switchgear Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellants are eligible for Modvat credit on testing panel falling under Heading No.85.37 during the period from 1/96 to 3/96. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that Heading No. 85.37 is not mentioned in the list of the capital goods eligible tor Modvat credit It was argued for the appellants that this issue had earlier come up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under Final Order No. A/753/98-NB, dated 3-7-98 had remanded back the case to the original authority to decide the issue afresh on the ground that testing machines where specifications and tolerances of component parts were critical factors in the marketability of the final goods, such testing machines have been put on part with machine, which process the components and which go in the production of final products. The eligibility of such machines cannot be brushed aside by making a sweeping general statement. It was informed by the Id. Advocate tha...

Shri Ashish Gupta Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC171

1. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellants as time barred on the ground that it was filed after 2 and a half years after the service of the order-in-original.2. It was pleaded for the appellants that after investigation of the case, show cause notice was issued to the appellants but the same was decided by the original authority on the ground that no reply has been received from the appellants. Therefore, before the Commissioner (Appeals), they have pleaded that the order-in-original, which was passed behind their back and said to have been sent to the appellants, was never received by them till they received the letter dated 14.5.2001 by which they were asked by the Superintendent to deposit the amount of penalty, adjudicated under order-in-original dated 22.3.99.The appellants stated that they have not received any other order except Order dated 26.2.99. Therefore, there cannot be any question of recovery. The Superintendent und...

Cce Vs. Magnum Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(107)ECC628

1. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue. The issue involved in both the appeals is common, hence these are being taken up together for decision under this common order. The Central Excise officers visited the premises of M/s. Magnum Steel Ltd. on 7.2.2002 and after physical verification of the stock of finished goods, excess quantity of the 48.200 MT of Twisted Bars and 51.21 MTs. of Flats was found than the recorded balance in daily production register. On inquiry, the representative of the manufacturer explained that the excess goods found on verification was due to incorrect accounting of the stock in register. After issue of the show cause notice, the original authority confiscated the seized goods and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs on M/s. Magnum Steels Ltd. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order set aside the confiscation of goods and reduced penalty to Rs. 10,000/-...