Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Sree PorcelaIn P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC201

1. This appeal is directed against the order made by the DRT, Jaipur, on June 19, 2001, on an application filed under Section 19(7) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, seeking issuance of recovery certificate enabling the applicant-bank, for pursuing appropriate remedy thereafter.2. The State Bank of India instituted a suit for recovery of certain amounts on November 9, 1983, before the District Court at Alwar. A preliminary decree was passed on February 13, 1986, against the defendants with certain condition. However, when the conditions of preliminary decree were not complied with by the defendants, a final decree was passed on November 9, 1993. While so, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the RDB Act") came to be enacted, and pursuant to which the DRT was established at Jaipur, which started functioning from August 30, 1994. When the DRT at Jaipur started functioning, the applicant-bank moved a...

Shri H.P.S. Chawla Vs. Dr. N.P.S. Chawla, S/O Shri Gopal Singh Chawla,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi53; 124(2005)DLT124; 2005(84)DRJ516; (2005)141PLR62

Vijender Jain, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th January, 2004 granting Letters of Administration in favor of respondent no. 1, namely, Dr. N.P.S. Chawla who was the original petitioner in Probate Case No. 22/1991.2. Briefly stated the facts are that Smt. Ram Pyari Chawla died on 27th October, 1990 leaving behind three sons ; namely, H.P.S. Chawla, Chawla, Dr. N.P.S. Chawla, Shri T.P.S. Chawla and a daughter Smt. Nirmal Devi Daniere. She also left a Will dated 4th July, 1986. Consequent to her death, her son Dr. N.P.S. Chawla filed a petition seeking grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 4th July, 1986. No dispute to the Will was raised by any of the legal heirs except her son T.P.S. Chawla whom she denied a share in her property except for a token sum of Rs. 1/-. Her said son filed objections to the Will, but during the pendency of the petition before the learned Single Judge, it was stated...

iqbal HussaIn and ors. Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT223

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek a quashing of a condition, contained in an advertisement/ notification inviting applications for the post of Primary Teachers, on contract basis, issued by the respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereafter 'MCD'). 2. The MCD issued an advertisement on 3rd August, 2005, inviting applications from amongst eligible candidates for the post of Primary teachers. The notification set out the qualifications, and other eligibility criteria. This included a condition that the applicant must be registered with an Employment Exchange in Delhi. The present petitioners impugn Note 8 in the advertisement. 3. The relevant portions of the notification issued by MCD are extracted below:' MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Engagement of Teachers in MCD on Contract Basis Applications are invited from desirous candidates, who fulfill the eligibility conditions stipulated in the Recruitment R...

B.K. Bansal Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT396; 2005(84)DRJ515

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. The matter was adjourned vide Order dated 21st September, 2005, to enable Counsel for the Respondent-Enforcement Directorate to make his submissions.2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19th September, 2002, of the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 12/2002 ,which appeal was directed against the judgment dated 29th May, 2002 and order on sentence dated 1st June, 2002, whereby the Petitioner was convicted under Section 56 of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 19th September, 2002, while upholding the order of conviction, modified the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner to six months.3. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction on merits but confines his arguments only to the question ...

M.B. Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)571; 124(2005)DLT324; 2005(84)DRJ563; [2005]279ITR298(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a common order, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby the block assessment order made against the appellant has been held to be within the period of limitation prescribed for the same. The factual matrix giving rise to the proceedings before the authorities below may be summarised as under:2. A survey was conducted by the Income-tax Department in the business premises of the appellants in Delhi on 1st February, 2000, which continued till 10 AM on the 2nd February, 2000 when the survey proceedings were converted into a search. In the course of the said proceedings, the authorised officer passed an order in terms of Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in regard to the contents of an almirah and cupboard found in the premises being searched. On the conclusion of the search, a notice under Section 158BC was issued to the appellant on 22nd January, 2002 asking him to furnish a return set...

Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT314; 2005(84)DRJ497; 2006(196)ELT10(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioners have, in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the following reliefs:'(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the rate of import/customs duty prescribed @ 30% in Customs Tariff for Vanaspati having H.S. Code No. 15162091.(b) Pass an appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to rationalise the existing import/customs duty structure for Crude Palm Oil (HS Code 15119010), RBD Palm Oil (HS Code No. 1511000) and Vanaspati (HS Code No. 15162091), and bring the same to the original position as existing in the year 2000-2001.(c) Pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.'2. The factual backdrop, in which the above prayers have been made, may be summarised as under:3. The petitioner Bhatinda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of edible oil/vanaspati, whereas petitioners No. 2 ...

Bhatinda Chemcials Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ615

T.S. Thakur, J.1. Judicial review of public policies is limited to finding out whether the policy violates any law validly enacted or fundamental or constitutional right guaranteed to the citizens. The wisdom underlying any such policy cannot be examined by the Courts who have resisted the temptation of examining whether a particular public policy was beneficial for the system or whether a better policy could be evolved in its place. The predominant reason why courts have been slow in entertaining issues regarding the suitability of a particular policy, whether economic or otherwise, is the lack of expertise required to adjudicate upon matters that go into the formulation of such policies. The result is that public policies are allowed to stay untouched by judicial interference unless it is found to be so vocative of the constitutional limits or so abhorrent to reason that interference becomes necessary. The legal position in this regard is settled by a catena of decisions delivered by...

Super Electricals Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ225(Del); 124(2005)DLT268

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The issues which have arisen in these Petitions are whether it is open to the Respondents to refuse to handover possession of the plots, the total price of which has already been paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents as per their demand. The stand of the DSIDC is that the applications for allotment of industrial plots were received pursuant to a Public Notice issued in 1996 which notice was a sequel to the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta case. However, it will become obvious that in actual fact the DSIDC relies on a 1999 Order emanating from the Office of the Commissioner of Industries which attempts to over-ride and drastically depart from its 1996 Policy, which was aimed at improving the living conditions in Delhi.2. In the M.C.Mehta decisions, a Public Interest Litigation had been filed on the deteriorating state of affairs in the metropolis. It is public knowledge that Delhi was expanding in an undeveloped manner, either in the...

Kuber Planters Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]150TAXMAN11(Delhi)

ORDERCM No. 1882/2005This application has been filed by Balraj Singh, who is 77 years old and his daughter Smt. Kamlesh.2. The applicant had deposited Rs. 3.95 lakhs with one finance company called M/s. Kuber Planters Ltd. to meet the marriage expenses of his daughter (Applicant No. 2), under a scheme floated by the Kuber Group of Companies, which had assured the doubling of this amount under that scheme. It is not known when this group of companies fell in the red, but its FDRs were seized by the Income-tax department on 8-2-1997 amounting to Rs. 5 crores and odd. This included applicants'money also and this started the troubled journey for the applicants.3. The applicants first approached the Consumer Redressal Commission and obtained a decree dated 7-7-2000 against the petitioner-company for Rs. 9.16 lakhs. This decree also entitled the applicants for interest (a) 12.5 per cent on the deposit made by them in the company, which had assured payment of this amount.4. The applicants the...

Harpal Singh Gulati Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 29.4.1998, passed by the District Forum, whereby the relief sought by the appellant against the respondent-MTNL for quashing the telephone bills in respect of trunk calls and overseas calls was denied whereas other reliefs namely rental rebate and refund of restoration fees were allowed, the appellant has directed this appeal. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, are that initially a non-STD telephone No. 5458575 was installed at the factory of the appellant in the year 1984 and STD facility was provided w.e.f. 18.5.1993. It was after the provision of STD facility the appellant started receiving highly inflated bills showing overseas calls, as well as trunk calls. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that once STD facility was there the question of truck calls did not arise and so far as overseas calls shown by the respondent is concerned, these have been unauthorisedly made in connivance with the staff of the respondent as he has...