Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Seil Ltd. (Unit Mawana Sugar Works) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT611; 2006(86)DRJ456

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. These Letter Patent Appeals have been filed against a common judgment by the learned Single Judge of this court on 24.09.2004 in Writ Petition Nos. 2163/1996, 4504/1997 and 6154/2003. Since all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, we are disposing them off together.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The appellant in LPA No. 1131/04 Mawana Sugar Ltd. (formerly known as M/s SIEL Ltd.), and other petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the right of the Food Corporation of India to make deductions for the short supply and/or wet / damaged supply of levy sugar in the past from amounts to be paid in the subsequent bills of the sugar mills.5. To understand the controversy we may state a few facts. Sugar is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1...

Manish Singh Vs. State Govt of Nct and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi37; 126(2006)DLT28; I(2006)DMC1; 2006(86)DRJ241

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The above two habeas corpus petitions are being decided by this common judgment. These relate to what are generally referred to as 'Run away Marriages'.Re-Manish SinghManish Singh, petitioner in WP(Crl.) No. 1680/05 seeks release of his wife Suman, allegedly detained by her parents against her wishes. Petitioner Manish Singh was a tenant under respondent No. 2/Sh.Ram Sanjeewan Gupta and fell in love with his daughter Suman, respondent No. 4 herein, a young girl of 16 years. Both eloped and got married on 17th May, 2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi. They co-habited and lived together after marriage in Delhi and in Bihar.2. Petitioner alleges that Sh. R.S.Gupta and his associates forceably abducted and took away his wife Suman on 15th September, 2005. He complained and lodged a report with the police but to no avail. Petitioner thereupon was constrained to file the present petition. Notice in the petition was issued on 30th September, 2005, returnable on...

Pure Drinks Limited and ors. Vs. Project Investments Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ482

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. IA Nos. 3302/2005 and 3445/1994 in CS(OS) 2311/19931. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this court to withdraw these applications. Permission is granted. Dismissed as withdrawn.IA No. 4013/20052. This is an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of two applicants - Mrs. Surinder Judge and Col. A.S., Judge who are wife and husband, respectively. It is claimed that Mrs. Surinder, Judge is the daughter of late Sardar Mohan Singh, who was the founder of the Pure Drinks Group. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel, states that there are two orders passed by this Court on 06.08.2002 and 22.03.2005 which affect the rights of the applicants and there is an is being is No. 2310/2005 in which also relief has been sought which affects the interests of the applicant and it is for this reason that he is seeking impleadment. However, in view of the order being passed in is No. 8685/1999, the ord...

Rajesh Shahi Vs. Rima Shahi @ Rima Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT9; I(2006)DMC90; 2006(86)DRJ78

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM(M) 122/2004 is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge in HMA 336/2001 whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 14.01.2004 has decided the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, together with Rs. 15,000/-(rupees fifteen thousand) as litigation expenses.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fixation of this amount has been purely on conjectures and on the face of the evidence on record, namely, the income tax returns, the trial court could not have taken any other material into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is earning or is capable of earning about Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) per month. He submits that a judgment of this court in Ashwani Makin v. Neelam Makin, 1993, Rajdhani Law Repor...

India Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Poonam Rai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ540

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned single Judge dated 9.5.2002, Annexure A to the appeal.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating unless where necessary.4. The respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed on the post of Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant on contract basis in the service of the appellant corporation by order dated 14.1.1994 up to 31.5.1996. Clause 3 of the appointment order states:On the expiry of the period of contract, your services shall automatically stand terminated and you shall be deemed to have been relieved.5. Clause 6 of the appointment order states:During the period of contract, your services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice from either side and without assigning any reason thereof.6. It is alleged in para 10 of the writ petition that the petit...

Ajay Kinra Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking quashing of certain telephone bills which were many times more than what he used to receive in the post was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28th September, 2005 on the ground of the details of calls produced by the respondent for the relevant period and also on the ground that the District Forum cannot order billing on average basis ignoring the actual calls. 2. We are afraid on both the counts the District Forum has faltered. Whenever a complaint is made by a consumer that his average calls in the past were very less and suddenly if for a particular period he had received astronomically high bill, the proper course is to make an in-depth inquiry as to the particular telephone numbers which were responsible for the inflated bill, to ascertain whether such telephones numbers were ever used by the consumer in the past or for what duration and was there any relationship or connection of the consumer with the subscribers of ...

Krishan Kumar Sharma Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking quashing of the bills raised on the basis of defective meter was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.7.2005 on the ground that in the absence of any material to substantiate that replaced meter was also faulty, the billing on the previous average consumption pattern cannot be allowed to be raised. 2. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that inspection was carried out by the much lower functionaries and not by the electrical Inspector/or a authorized person or an independent authority. On this premise alone the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside with directions to decide the matter afresh by considering the aforesaid contention of the Counsel for the appellant and also by giving opportunity to the respondent as to the inspection by an authorized person. 3. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. 4. The appellant is directed to appear before the concerned District For...

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Hari Chand

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The main grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 13.7.2005 whereby a bill of Rs. 1,49,155 in respect of electricity connection No. 12101311 0016 in the name of the respondent was rescinded and besides the appellant was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 40,000 charged from the respondent in respect of bill dated 28.2.2005 and 3.3.2005 and pay Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as litigation charges is that the District Forum did not consider the evidence produced by the appellant by way of photographs showing the direct theft of electricity by way of illegally bypassing the meter through changeover switch with illegal wire. 2. Several photographs have been produced before us in order to show that there was a direct theft of electricity by way of illegally bypassing the meter but there is no discussion with regard to these photographs and the order has been passed solely on the ground that the concerned official Shri Sanjeev Kumar coul...

Cce Vs. Steel Sales Corpn.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue is in appeal in this case against the Order-in-appeal dated 15.12.2003 wherein the appellate authority has set aside the penalty on the respondents.2. The relevant facts for my consideration are : the respondents are a dealer and purchased M.S. Scrap from one M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co. The respondents in turn sold the said scrap to its purchasers and issued a dealer's invoice. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice to the respondents on the ground that the scrap purchased by them from the said M/s Mahabir Prasad & Co. was not an industrial scrap, but a scrap from Kabari, and hence the respondents have made themselves liable for imposition of penalty under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,34,000/- on the respondents. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held in the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pinnacle Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC499

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore dated 20.7.2004. The respondents, M/s.Pinnacle Industries Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of furniture and motor vehicle parts. They entered into an agreement with M/s.Saporiti, Italy (a foreign company) on 23.11.1998 for availing the benefit of technical know-how for manufacture of furniture and also sale thereof in India. The agreement entered into by them reveals the following two aspects: (1) Clauses 13 to 15 of the agreement refers to the technical know-how rendered by the foreign company against a lumpsum consideration of US $ 90,000/-. (2) Clause 16 relates to the payment of royalty on all items of furniture manufactured and sold by the Indian company with the help of know-how received from the foreign company @ 5% of the ex-factory sale price of such products invoiced by the Indian company.2. A show cause notice was issued to them on 13.10. 2003, demanding service tax on "consult...