Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Cadila Hospital Products Vs. Sri Kanth Bhatt and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is supplier of health product known as pacemaker manufactured by an Australian Company. On their representation about the quality of the pacemaker the respondent No. 1 purchased one pacemaker on 15.2.1991 for an amount of Rs. 15,350/- with eight years replacement warranty. However the pacemaker became infected and needed replacement after three years of its purchase. Respondent had no other option than to purchase a new pacemaker valued at Rs. 38,160/-. 2. On account of indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the District Forum vide order dated 17.12.1998 directed the appellant to pay Rs. 38,160/- towards the price of the second pacemaker and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and discomfort suffered by him. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the appellant were neither the manufacturer nor the agent at the relevant time i.e., wh...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sarup Tanneries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT217TriDel

2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had held as under :- "The case of the appellants is squarely covered by the above Clause (b) inasmuch as they have declared different prices for the different regions/areas. It is not a case where different prices have been declared without mentioning the area of sale. It is just keeping in view the convenience that the appellants have printed a common sticker for different areas showing the different prices. Once the goods enter a specific region/area, the prices mentioned for others area get automatically irrelevant and it is only the price declared for that particular area which remains into force.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents were clearing goods and on the packages, they were mentioning three different prices.The contention of the Revenue is that in view of the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, at the relevant time, where on the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. B.R. Traders (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT182TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeals passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby interleave carbon paper was held to be classified under Heading 48.20 of the Central Excise Act. The contention of the Revenue is that it is a simple carbon paper and is classifiable under Heading 48.16 on the ground that in the bills the respondents mentioned the items as interleaved carbon sets whereas the Heading 48.20 covers interleaved carbon sets. The contention of the Respondent is that the Revenue has not disputed that goods are used as computer stationery and it is used as interleaved carbon. We find that Revenue is not disputing the fact that carbon in question is used as computer stationery in sets and it is used as interleaved carbons sets of computer stationery. Therefore, if the respondents have mentioned only interleaved and not interleave carbon sets, the carbon paper in question cannot be held to be classifiable under Heading 48.20 of the Cent...

Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT77TriDel

2. The appellants filed these appeals against the common Order-in-Appeal. In this case, duty was confirmed against M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that they were clearing branded surgical adhesive tapes, which are classifiable under Heading 3004.90 of the CETA. A demand was also confirmed against M/s. Chetna Medicare Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that goods manufactured by M/s. Chetna Polytex Pvt. Ltd. were cleared on the invoices of M/s. Chetna Medicare Pvt.Ltd. The contention of the appellants is that M/s. Chetna Polytex is manufacturing various products including surgical adhesive tapes and on the inner role of which the 'Chetna Medicare' or 'CM' was written. The contention of the appellants is that these are surgical tapes and they are manufacturing after following the Drug Rules and as per the provisions of Drug Rules, it was mandatory on the manufacturer to mention the name of the manufacturer. The contention that mere mentioning 'CM' is not mention of any brand name but o...

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicants filed this application for waiver of duty Rs. 3,40,63,905/- and penalty of equal amount. In this case, at the time of hearing of the appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Crores and 50 Lacs. The applicants approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed the applicants to deposit the same amount in the High Court.In compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicants deposited the sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts afresh and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) again directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores. Thereafter, the appeal was decided confirming demand and imposing the penalty on the applicants. The Revenue approached the Hon'ble High Court for withdrawal of the amount, which was deposited by the...

Shokeen Ali Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT707; 2005(80)DRJ295

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Rule. Counsel for the respondent waives notice of Rule. With consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.2. In 1981, the respondent (hereafter called 'DDA') announced a scheme for allotment of plots, known as the Rohini Residential Scheme (hereafter called 'the scheme'). The flats offered were in three categories, namely, Middle Income Groups (MIG), Lower Income Groups (LIG) and Janta/EWS. Shri Rustam, father of the petitioner, registered himself under the scheme, for allotment of a plot in the Janta/EWS category. He was subsequently issued an allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of plot No. 201, Pocket-3, Block-F, Sector-16, Rohini, measuring 25.9 Sq.Mtrs. After adjustment of the amounts already deposited with the DDA, a demand was made for the balance, namely, Rs.1749/- payable by or before 31.09.1985. Rustam, however, was unable to pay within time and he deposited the amount on 14.02.1986 with interest. The total amount deposited was Rs.1874.49/-.3. The ...

Sohan Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT483

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case No.40/2000 convicting the accused/appellant Sohan Singh for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. By the same judgment, the accused Labh Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt on the person of Balbir Kaur with blunt object. He was, however, given the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to the period undergone. This appeal is, however, filed only by Sohan Singh and, thereforee, we are concerned in this appeal only with the part of the order of conviction and sentence passed against Sohan Singh. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.11.1991 while on...

injecto Ltd. Vs. Controller of Aid Account and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT657; 2005(80)DRJ650

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order made by learned Single Judge in WP (C) 1639/1973 decided on 22nd March, 1988.2. A public notice No.52-ITC(PN)/64 dated 24th June, 1964 was issued by the Ministry of Commerce inviting the applications for license for import of machinery, components thereof, equipment, other commodities and raw materials from the U.S. Under AID Loan 103. It is the case of the appellant that he had applied under the said Scheme and the license was issued and the goods were shipped from USA by the exporter. It is pointed out that unfortunately on account of Indo-Pak War in the year 1965, cargo was seized at Karachi by the Government of Pakistan. In view of the scheme the application was made for release of funds.3. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. P.V. Vasudevan, Controller of Aid Accounts and Audit, it is pointed out by the deponent in para '3' that the company did not give complete documentation in respect of its import as s...

Prem Kumar Vs. Secy. (Labour), Goi, M/O Labour and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT712; [2005(105)FLR816]; (2005)IILLJ443Del; 2006(1)SLJ199(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. As per the Registrar's Order dated 12th April, 2004, respondent No.1/UOI has been duly served and no one appears for it. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.1/UOI in Court today. 2. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 16th July, 2002(Annexure-A at Page 15 of the writ petition), declining to refer the industrial dispute raised in respect of the petitioner for adjudication. The petitioner claims that he had worked for about three years from 1st July, 1997 as a Helper on daily wages basis against the permanent perennial nature of work with the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi(in short the `UOI'), who has the authority to make the reference of the industrial dispute raised by the aggrieved workman under Section...

Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR439(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT189

1. Respondent has filed this application praying that the issue of jurisdiction raised by it against the maintainability of appellant's application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and the arbitration be decided as a preliminary issue in this Appeal.2. This appeal is directed against order dated 4.11.2004 dismissing appellant's OMP No.398/2004 filed under Section 9 of the New Arbitration Act 1996 and the jurisdictional plea raised by the respondent is that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 nor could the dispute raised by Appellant be referred to any arbitration in the face of Sections 14 & 15 of the TRAI Act and subsequent to the creation of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under this Act as this Tribunal alone had the jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate such disputes in connection with which appellant had filed the OMP under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for an interim ...