Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Mrs. Ishi Khosla Vs. Anil Aggarwal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC370(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff Mrs. Ishi Khosla founded `M/s. Whole Foods', which is a sole proprietorship firm of the plaintiff. It is engaged in the business of producing and retailing `healthy and healing food products' in India. It carries on business through various franchise outlets located at Gurgaon and Chandigarh. The plaintiff claims that she is a leading Health Counsellor and a former Senior Nutritionist with the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Center, New Delhi. She feels pride in bringing forth a unique concept of 'one-stop shop' which makes available and sells a wide range of `healthy and healing foods' to consumers through its `Whole Foods Shop' outlets located in major cities such as New Delhi, Chandigarh and Gurgaon. These foods include all foods that provide good nutrition and promote good health using minimum additives, preservatives and Chemicals and are not restricted to just low fat foods. Based on this belief she star...

Narender Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar Lamba and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ614

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent No. 1 - Rajinder Kumar Lamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has filed complaint against the petitioner as well as against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein. This complaint is under Sections 420/406/506 Part-II/448/480 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). It is alleged in this complaint by the complainant that he is a property dealer and deals in the business of sale and purchase of properties from his residence in Paschim Vihar, Delhi. On 27.9.1995, Narender Singh (petitioner herein) and his sister Devinder Kaur (accused No. 2 in the complaint) approached the complainant and offered the property No. 72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III consisting of two and a half story building over an area of 792 sq.yds. for sale. They represented that this property was in the name of their father Sahib Singh, who died in September 1991, leaving behind Will dated 20.4.1970 in respect of this property and as per the said Wi...

Nb. Sub. Raj Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ631

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Nb. Sub. Raj Pal Singh had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions with a prayer that the order of discharge dated 31st August, 2002 be quashed.2. The petitioner who was enrolled in JAT regiment on 9.3.1980, was promoted to the rank of Nb. Subedar. On 24.10.2001, he was placed in low medical category P-2 (Permanent). On 27.2.2002, he was issued a show cause notice stating that he was in low medical category and no sheltered appointment was available. On 22.4.2002, he was subjected to Release Medical Board and he was discharged on 31.8.2002. The writ petition was contested by the respondents who had stated before the court that the petitioner was discharged on medical grounds under Rule 13(3) I (iii) (c) read with Rule 13(2)(A) in accordance with Army Order 46/1980 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Vide detailed judgment da...

C.P. Madan Vs. National Small Scale Industrial Corporation Ltd. and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR370(Delhi)

J.M. Malik, J.1. In this case, the appellant has picked up a conflict with the proceedings conducted by the arbitrator. The facts germane to the present controversy are these. The appellant, who is the sole proprietor of M/s. Printrade, entered into an agreement dated 26.03.1991 with National Small Scale Industrial Corporation Limited (to be referred as 'NSIC henceforth), wherein respondent No. 1 leased out a sheet-fed single colour offset printing machine valued @ Rs. 6,33,898. The appellant defaulted to make the payment as per the agreement. The matter was referred to Shri Y.K. Sharma, respondent No. 2, the sole arbitrator in-between. The appellant filed two suits bearing Nos. 681/2001 and 682/2001, wherein he prayed that since the time mentioned in the agreement had expired, thereforee, the appointment of arbitrator is illegal and the second suit was filed with the prayer that award dated 09.11.2001 be declared as non est because it was made in breach of the undertaking given by the...

Vinayak Exports India Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC369

1. These three appeals are directed against the same order-in-original.Since all these three appeals are arising out of the same order-in-original, the same are being disposed of by common order.2. The main issue involved in all these three appeals are that the appellants had mis-declared the quantity of goods imported by him and the value of the goods which was imported by him. On this presumption, the goods were detained and subsequently by the impugned order confiscated and demand of duty was confirmed on the appellant along with the imposition of penalties. The learned advocate submits that the question of mis-declaring the goods does not arise because the goods were found to be as declared. It is also his submission that the Revenue authorities had drawn samples of the goods, which were imported in all three cases and sent for test. As the test reports were not given to the appellant, the whole order-in-original seems to be passed without hearing their side of case. It is also hi...

iti (Tid) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC297

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner made on 22.4.2004, confirming demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,18,39,818/- and imposing a penalty of the like amount as also requiring the interest to be paid on the delayed payment of duty.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of telephone instruments and parts thereof classifiable under chapter heading 8517 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. From 1.3.2000, the Notification No.9/2000-CX., required the instruments meant for retail sale, to show the MRP on their packages. The appellant supplied telephone instruments to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and MTNL who gave them to the customers on rental basis, to the subscribers by retaining the ownership of the instruments. The appellant also sold some telephone instruments in the open market on MRP basis. According to the Revenue, the appellant had declared the pattern of sale in their letter dated 27.3.2000, that they would sell the instru...

Western Tobacco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The duty demand is in regard to cut tobacco supplied to an export processing unit. The supply was in terms of domestic procurement certificate issued by the procuring unit. That certificate had also the specific approval of appraiser of Customs. The duty demand is in regard to additional duty of excise (surcharge) @ Rs. 5/-.2. The submission of the appellant is that since it made the supply under a certificate duly approved by a Customs Officer and the certificate specifically stated that all tax liabilities including the surcharge, remains transferred to the buyer and a bond had been executed for that purpose, no demand could be raised against the supplier.3. A perusal of the certificate in question shows that the surcharge now demanded is one of the items specifically mentioned therein. Prima facie, the appellant is right in its contention that, in terms of the bond executed by the buyer, liability, if any, remains shifted to the buyer and a demand against the supplier is illegal...

Mohd. Adil and anr. Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ73

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2001 challenges the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 17/2001 arising out of FIR No. 150/1999, Police Station WelCome, whereby the learned judge vide judgment dated 24.09.2001 has acquitted Bhura @ Shahzad of the charges framed against him while convicted accused Mohd. Adil and Raja Khan under Sections 302/34 IPC. Further, by his order dated 24.09.2001, sentenced both the accused to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and further a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for six months. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was awarded to both the convicts. 2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are as under:that on the night intervening 15 & 16.7.99 on receipt of DD No. 27A Ex. PW-16/A of PS Wel Come, Delhi with respect to one lady having received burn inju...

Satish Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT56

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 130 of the Custom Act by the Appellant for setting aside the impugned order dated 21st November, 2005 passed by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, Court No. II, New Delhi (herein after referred to as Tribunal).2. Brief facts of this case are that five firms namely M/s Sharanpur Handicrafts, M/s Deepshikha Overseas, M/s Himgiri Overseas, M/s Stitch & Style and M/s R.S. & Co. approached M/s Sharp Cargo Movers a Custom House Agent Company (for short CHA) of which the appellant was Director for handling their export of ready made garments, under the Duty Draw Back Scheme. These firms filed 100 shipping bills for export of ready made garments. The export of ready made garments entitles the exporters to claim duty draw back at the rate prescribed under the schedule. Out of 36 containers, in respect of 100 shipping bills filed by the above mentioned exporting firms, 12 containers were detained at Mum...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neeta Malhotra and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC541; 2007ACJ1435

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. F.A.O. No. 59 of 1987 is dismissed in default as none has appeared for the appellant at the hearing today.2. Even otherwise, I note that on various dates F.A.O. No. 59 of 1987 was listed in the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. On no date, counsel appeared for the appellant.3. I may also note that grievance of the insurance company in the appeal is to that part of the award whereunder, learned Tribunal has held that the insurance company has failed to prove that its liability was limited to Rs. 50,000.4. Since connected appeal by claimants is also being decided, I have perused the record of the learned trial Judge. I have perused testimony of M.S. Jagga, R3W1, posted as an Inspector in the Ferozpur office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the branch where the offending vehicle was got insured. In cross-examination, he has admitted, (quote):It is, however, correct that policy in question was a comprehensive commercial vehicle policy. 5. He has further admitted that...