Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Harish Chander Vs. Bharti Bhardwaj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT112; I(2005)DMC563

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.C.M. (M) No. 820/2004:1. By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the Order dated 17th May, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was dismissed.2. A petition Under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud on account of concealment of material information. The petitioner was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites on 18th July, 1996.3. The respondent filed the written statement and contested the claim of the petitioner. After completion of pleadings following issues were framed on 22nd May, 1998 by the Trial Court:(a) Whether the consent of the petitioner to marriage between the parties was obtained by fraud as alleged and the onus of? --OPP(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree annulment? ---OPP(c) Relief?4. The petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint alleging t...

Subhash Chand Kakkar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ382

Manju Goel, J1. The petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') vide an order dated 26.3.2001 in case FIR No. 141/84 police station Rajouri Garden and he is assailing that order in the present petition. 2. The petitioner was named in the column No. 2 of the charge sheet as a person not arrested and not sent up for trial. The incident of shoot-out is dated 27.3.1984 in which two persons expired. One was the brother of the petitioner called Suresh Kakkar, who was killed by the bullet fired by the complainant, Rattan Lal Verma. The other was Vijay Kumar who died on account of a shot fired by Suresh Kakkar. The petitioner has been named in the challan as S.C. Kakkar and Suresh Kakkar has been referred as the brother of S.C. Kakkar. The site of the accident was the showroom of M/s. Delhi Scooters at property No. 31A. On that date the court bailiff had arrived with orders to evict the petitioner who was the owner of the showroo...

Laltech Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Etc. Vs. Gypsum Struct ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC283

ORDERManju Goel, J.1. The only point raised in these revision-petitions is that the complaint should have been filed on the basis of the notices dated 21-12-2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that is, after giving 15 days for payment counting from the date of service of the notices dated 21-12-2001. The complainant/respondent in this case submitted the cheques in question to the bank for payment after the notices of 21-12 2001 and on those cheques being dishonoured once again, another notice dated 7-3-2002 for payment was sent. The complaint is within time from the date of second notice of demand. It is pleaded that the demand having been made first on 21 2-2001, rest of the action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had to follow this notice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms, : AIR1999SC3607 in which it was held that the language of the notice 'kindly arrange to make the ...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Krishna Avtar Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal arises out of Mediclaim Policy obtained by the respondent from the appellant for himself and for his wife for a period of one year commencing from 7.2.1996. Claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- spent by the respondent on her treatment of operation for Coronary artery bypass grafting was repudiated by the appellant on the ground of respondent having concealed the fact that the disease was pre-existing at the time of taking the policy. Feeling aggrieved the respondent approached the District Forum by way of filing the complaint under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Vide impugned order dated 7.7.2000 the complaint was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as per terms of the policy with interest @ 9%. 2. Through this appeal the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the respondent had concealed the factum of history of in-patient and out-patient during the years 1994 and 199...

Delite Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT189TriDel

1. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has directed M/s. Delite Processors vide Stay Order No. 562/2004-B to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs; that as they had deposited only Rs. 50,000/- within the time given by the Tribunal, the same was extended by another four weeks on the request made by the Applicants on 4-1-2005; that in an identical issue in the case of M/s. M. B. Dyers, Appeal No. E/3248-49/2004-B, the Tribunal has granted unconditional stay vide Stay Order No. 374-375/04-B dated 13-8-2004. The learned Advocate further, submitted that as the issue involved in the present Appeal is identical, their Stay Order may be modified and they may not be directed to deposit any further sum. Opposing the prayer Ms. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that once the Stay Order has been passed and time has also been extended for complying with the same, there is no justification for the Applicants to come up for modification.2. We hav...

Majestic Auto Ltd. and Shri Pankaj Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. Majestic Auto Limited (Hereinafter referred to as MAL) manufactures Mopeds and Scooters of different engine capacities and models falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have two manufacturing units-one at Ghaziabad and the other at Ludhiana. At Ghaziabad there are two divisions - one for the manufacture of mopeds and scooters and parts thereof and the other for trading of parts. They also have four depots each situated in M.P., A.P., Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The scooters and mopeds manufactured by them were sold in the domestic market and also exported. For the purpose of sale, the entire country had been divided into different regions and for every region they had a dealer network and the dealers were appointed by way of Letter of Indent (LOI in short) issued by them. The LOI contained the terms and conditions relating to Show Room, Workshop and staff to be maintained, the storage capacity to be provided, deposits to be made, Sa...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. R.F.H. Metal Castings (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC285

1. Both, Revenue and M/s. R.F.H. Metal Castings (P) Ltd., have filed one appeal each against the common Order-in-Appeal No. 173/2004, dated 19-4-2004.2. Shri Pankaj Malik, learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the assessee manufactures Electronic Energy Meter and avail of the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that one of the inputs received by them is M.S. steel tubes; that the said tubes are reduced and then cut to required sizes and subjected to the process of debarring and smoothing of edges and surfaces and, thereafter, the process of electro plating is carried out; that after carrying out all these processes, the tubes are exported to foreign country; that the Department has denied the MODVAT Credit taken by them in respect of M.S. tubes on the ground that as no manufacturing process has been carried out, they are not eligible to avail of the MODVAT Credit; that the view taken by the Revenue is contrary to the Instructions issued by the Board, vide Circular No. 283...

JaIn Metal Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-Appeal passed by the commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Brass Components from Brass Rods. During the manufacture of brass components, brass boring emerged as waste. The appellants were clearing the brass waste and scrap without payment of duty for job work under the cover of challans for getting the waste remelted and reconverted into brass rods and were receiving back the brass rods which were used as inputs for the manufacture of their final product i.e. brass components.3. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant wrongly forwarded the procedure under Rule 57AC of Central Excise Rules as this Rule provides that manufacturer can remove any inputs or capital goods as such to the job worker for further processing, testing, repairing, reconditioning or any other purpose. The case of the Revenue is that as the brass waste and scrap is not...

industrial Cables (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT70TriDel

2. These two appeals are directed against denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant's case is that it had rate contract with D.E.S.U, and Eastern Coalfields Limited for supply of wires and cables. The rate contract was on delivery terms i.e. price including excise duty, sales tax and freight.3. A perusal of the rate contract makes this position clear. However, the appellant discharged Central Excise at the time of clearance of the goods on the rate contract price i.e. price which included freight and other elements which are not required to form part of the assessable value. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants' is that it is well settled that question of unjust enrichment does not arise in the case of sale against such prices. Reliance is being placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 4. Learned SDR has pointed out that the appellant's invoice would sh...

Hindustan Chemicals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT497TriDel

2. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. In this case, the issue involved is whether value of packing material i.e. drums is to be included in the assessable value of sodium silicate.4. The contention of the appellants is that sodium silicate is cleared in drums which are durable and returnable in nature. Therefore, the value of the drums cannot be included in the assessable value of the finished products. The appellants relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Radha Krishaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise, Gooty and Ors. and Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Malwa Vanaspati & Chem. Co.Ltd. to submit that in case the packing material is durable and returnable in nature though it is not returned by the customer, the value thereof is not includible in the assessable value of the final products. The appellants also submitted that the demand is time barred as no suppression can be alleged...