Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 15 of about 296 results (0.022 seconds)Shri Krishan Lal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi350; 117(2005)DLT636; 2005(80)DRJ736
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2004 in WP(C) 13108/2004. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a restraint order against the respondent DDA from forcibly taking action and vacant physical possession of land stated to be known as Maya Devi Trust Pal Nursery behind Nirankari Mandir, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, admeasuring 5 bighas. 2. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain this petition in view of an earlier order passed on 27.7.2004 in Writ Petition (C) 12243/2004 on the ground that in case the appellant alleges that he has been dispossessed contrary to any interim orders of a competent court, the remedy of the appellant is by filing contempt proceedings.3. In order to appreciate the controversy, the order in Writ Petition (C) 12243/2004 dated 27.7.2004 would have to be considered. That writ petition was filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the DDA had requisitioned police ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Phool Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC705; 2006ACJ572; 125(2005)DLT707
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The appellant insurance company is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge passed in FAO No. 50/1983 on 31.08.1988 on the issue of the extent of liability of the insurance company.2. It is not necessary to go into details of the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased and the claim being filed by legal heirs under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act'). Suffice to say that the claim was made of Rs. 5 lakhs and in terms of the impugned judgment, the claimants have been held entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,16,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. In terms of the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the owner of vehicle was, however, dismissed.3. The only controversy raised before us arises from the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the liability of the insurance company ought to have been restricted only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the said Act.4. This plea...
Tag this Judgment!Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ699
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners claim that their legitimate expectations cannot be defeated by DDA, midstream changing its policy to allot plots of 60 sq. mts. instead of 90 sq. mts. to them. Promisory estopple is invoked against DDA. Response of DDA is that it held out no promise to allot 90 sq. mts. plot to the petitioners. It's scheme under which, petitioners applied, clearly provided that DDA had a right to allot smaller plots. It is pleaded that action of DDA is guided by public interest, in that, available land being less and registrants still waiting for being allotted a plot; to accommodate all within the available land, DDA had but no option other than to reduce the plot size. DDA pleads that petitioners had no right, much less indefeasible right to be allotted a plot measuring 90 sq. mts.2. In the year 1981, DDA floated its Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 whereunder it sought registration from individuals for being allotted a plot of land for residential purposes. In the M...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Jal Board Vs. Subhash Pipes Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR213(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lay a challenge to the award dated 12.04.2002 published by Sh. K.D. Bali, sole arbitrator on a dispute referred to him pertaining to the claims and counter-claims of the parties, arising out of Contract Agreement No. 6(1992-93).2. Respondent was the principal claimant. Petitioner was the respondent and had some counter-claims.3. Learned arbitrator took note of the following admitted facts:(a) Supply order was dated 26.08.1992.(b) Date of start of commencement of supply was 25.09.1992.(c) Contract stipulated date of completion was 25.09.1993.(d) Work as per contract was completed on 10.03.1995.4. Learned arbitrator noted that as per the contract between the parties, claimant was to be supplied certain raw materials from which pre-stressed pipes had to be fabricated by the claimant and supplied to Delhi Jal Board. Learned arbitrator also noted that the contract between the parties ha...
Tag this Judgment!L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT69TriDel
1. There is a duty demand of over Rs. 30,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. This is upon a finding that there was a shortage of 611 quintals of molasses in the appellant tank.2. The appellant's defence is two folds. One, that quantity has been erroneously computed (difference of about 548 quintals). It is being pointed out that according to the dip reading stock in tank No. 2 is up to 2.29 mtr. and if the quantity is worked out correctly according to that tank's calibration the quantity would have been found short by 62 quintals only. The second contention raised is that even the higher quantity found short is within the norm of 2% prescribed in Board's Circular No. 261/15/82/CX-VIII, dated 18-7-1983. The learned Chartered Accountant has also a third submission that the alleged shortage is only notional inasmuch as the appellant paid duty on the entire clearances of molasses at specific rate.3. As against above submissions on behalf of the appellant, learned JDR has pointed out that t...
Tag this Judgment!B.E.C. Foods Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT311TriDel
1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s. B.E.C. Foods, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No.125/84-C.E. dated 26.05.1984 is available to the goods manufactured by them and cleared to Bhutan.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants cleared Tomato Paste, manufactured by them in their 100% Export Oriented Undertaking, to Bhutan in 1993 and 1994 without payment of Central Excise Duty; that subsequently the duty has been demanded from them on the ground that as the payment of goods sold has been received on rupee account in contravention of the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 150/81 dated 29.7.1981 regarding obtaining payment in freely convertible currency, the duty is payable at the rates applicable to excisable goods produced in 100% Export Oriented Undertaking when sold in India. The Learned Advocate submitted that Bhutan is an independent sovereign State and as such all supplies to Bhutan are exp...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Dhanvi Trading and Investment (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT270TriDel
1. This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 to the respondents in spite of their using brand name of another person on their products Detergent powder and cake. The appeal was earlier decided by the Tribunal vide final order dated 25-7-89 vide which the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal along with another appeal of Vikashara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue challenged that order before the Apex Court and the Apex Court observed that no order has been passed in respect of the respondents and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision.2. We have heard both the sides. The learned SDR has contended that since the respondents are using the brand name 'Skylark' on their goods (Detergent powder and cake) which is owned by M/s. CMC India Pvt. Ltd. who is not eligible for grant of SSI exemption under ...
Tag this Judgment!H.P.L. Socomac Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC342
1. The appellant is filing this appeal being aggrieved with the imposition penalty on him under Rule 173Q.2. Material facts leading to the imposition of penalty are like this.The appellant was availing of the facility to discharge Central Excise duty liability on a fortnightly basis under Rule 173G of Central Excise Rules. Under Order No. 13/2001-CE dated 16.4.2001, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner withdraw that facility for a period of two months and ordered that appellant shall pay duty for each consignment in debit to the account current. Pursuant to this order, the appellant paid duty on consignment basis at the time of clearance of the goods. However, such duty payment was made from the Cenvat credit account and not from the Personal Ledger Account (PLA). Such payment, from Cenvat credit was considered an offence under order dated 27.7.2001 of the Dy.Commissioner and he imposed a penalty of over Rs. 15 lakhs on the appellant. This penalty was equal to the duty paid by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Beeta Metal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT416TriDel
1. On 22-9-1997 Central Excise Officer visited the appellant's factory in which Copper Alloy Ingots are manufactured. They produce the same from assorted items like brass scrap, copper scrap. Tin ingots are also used as input. Upon stock taking, the officers found a shortage of over 1.7 tons of copper alloy ingots (finished product). They also noted shortage of copper scrap to the extent of over 5 tons and 3 tons of tin ingots. Simultaneously, there was an excess of about 8 tons of brass scrap. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for not keeping proper accounts. They lead to the confiscation of excess/short goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.2. The contention of the appellant is that the excess stock of copper alloy ingot was the product of 22-10-1997 which was yet to be entered in the accounts. With regard to the scrap, their explanation is that issue of scrap for production is not done variety wise and therefore excess in one variety should be adjusted agai...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Apex Corp. Ltd. Vs. Svc Superchem Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT668; 2005(80)DRJ691
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Suit is under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Decree in sum of Rs.90,30,937/- is prayed for. Basis of the same claim is as under:-1. Principle amount as per agreement Rs.62,00,000/- dated 21.6.19992. Interest @ 24% p.m. from Rs.28,30,934/- 1.1.2000 to 25.11.2001-------------------Total Rs.90,30,937/--------------------2. Pendente lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. from 26.11.2001 on principal sum of Rs.62,00,000/- is prayed for.3. Suit is based on a written agreement dated 21.6.1999.4. Agreement records that the defendant had taken on hire purchase certain equipment and machinery vide hire purchase agreement No.007984 dated 30.10.1995 and hire purchase agreement No.007985 dated 26.10.1995. Equipment hired/leased was from the plaintiff. Agreement dated 21.6.1999 also refers to a loan agreement No.007267 dated 30.9.1996 between the parties.5. Agreement records that a sum of Rs.2.90 crores is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.6. Regarding the reci...
Tag this Judgment!