Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Kamal Kishore Vs. Charanjit Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC353; 2007(95)DRJ648

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Kamal Kishore, aged 44 years was injured in a road accident on 28.2.1991.2. He filed a claim petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 7,00,000 on account of the injuries suffered by him in the said road accident. Later, by way of the amendment he enhanced the claim to Rs. 20,00,000.3. Vide award dated 8.2.2001, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 4,23,701 to him. Break-up of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:(i) Dressing Charges ... Rs. 7,000(ii) Physiotherapy Charges ... Rs. 3,420(iii) Attendant Charges ... Rs. 11,102(iv) Treatment Expenses ... Rs. 13,792(v) Medicinal Charges ... Rs. 22,387(vi) Special Diet ... Rs. 9,000(vii) Conveyance Charges ... Rs. 3,400(viii) Special Shoes ... Rs. 3,600(viii) Loss of Income ... Rs. 1,50,000(ix) Pain and Suffering ... Rs. 50,000(x) Permanent Disability ... Rs. 1,50,000 ------------ Total Rs. 4,23,701 ------------4. Aggrieved by the compens...

Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)CTLJ395(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the decision of Respondent No. 2, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) to award the tender for Stainless Steel Plates of grade IRSM-44097 to Respondent No. 3, Salem Steel since Salem Steel does not satisfy any of the technical qualifications prescribed in the tender document and also quoted a higher price than the Petitioner M/s Jindal Stainless Steel Ltd. The petitioner is a manufacturer of stainless steel products in India and has previously supplied various quantities of steel plates to Respondent No. 2, Ministry of Railways.2. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner are as under:a) The Respondent No. 2 Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) invited tender number IS-152 of 2005 for purchasing approximately 9398 MTs of Stainless Steel plates and the relevant portion of the said tender has been extracted below:GOVERNMENT OF INDIA(BHARAT SARKAR)MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAIL MANTRALAYA)(RAILWAY BOARD)Tender No. IS: 152/2005The Presi...

Sh. Deep Chand Vs. Sh. Kulanand Lakhera and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT765; 2007(95)DRJ683

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Dealing with possession, in Chapter 9, Salmond On Jurisprudence (12th Edition), states that few relationships are as vital to man as that of possession, and we may expect any system of law, however primitive, to provide rules for its protection. Possession of material things is essential to life, it is the most basic relationship between men and things.2. Elaborating the concept of possession, at page 266, the learned author has opined:But the concept of possession is as difficult to define as it is essential to protect. In the first place, possession is an abstract notion and involves the same sort of difficulties, which we have seen to arise with other abstract terms such as 'law' and 'rule'. There is nothing which we can point at and identify as possession in the same way as we can do with concrete things such as tables and chairs. Moreover, it is an abstract term to which the traditional type of definition is as inappropriate as we saw it to be for the term ...

Sat Paul Kalra Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ1

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act is directed against the Order dated 6th May, 2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4984/2005 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted that compassionate and lenient view may be taken and the appellant may be allotted a MIG Flat at the current costs. In this regard he had relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28th March, 2005 passed in LPA No. 61/2005 titled Vimal Marwah v. Delhi Development Authority and another and LPA No. 731/2003 titled Balber Prasad Jain v. Delhi Development Authority. It was also submitted that there is no document on record to establish that the appellant was informed that he was successful in the draw of lots held in 1993.3. The appellant had registered himself under the SFS Scheme floated by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as DDA, for short) in 1985 for category II flat. He h...

Alok Kumar JaIn Vs. Purnima Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ115

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Alok Kumar Jain was married to Ms. Purnima Jain at New Delhi. They were blessed with 2 daughters.2. Alok Kumar Jain was employed as a Senior Manager with Engineers India Ltd. Unfortunately for the couple their daughter, Radhika, suffered from severe hearing loss of both ears. The couple spent considerable money on her treatment. In the year 2000, Alok Kumar Jain, in consultation with his wife, decided that if he took up employment in Abu Dhabi he could enhance his monetary prospects. He tendered his resignation. He received Rs. 27 lacs as terminal benefits from Engineers India Ltd. The money was deposited in a joint account operated by the husband arid the wife. The husband took up employment in Abu Dhabi. Unfortunately, the couple separated. The 2 daughters are with the mother.3. The wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. She filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying that she be grant...

Sandhya BhasIn Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant who is a consumer of opposite party-DVB has sought refund of Rs. 9,67,349 with interest @ 3% per month paid in excess towards the electricity bills raised wrongly in respect of the defective meter. 2. Brief facts are that the electricity meter became defective since January 1993 but the O.P. did not replace the same till it was ordered by the Civil Court of Ms. Neena Krishna Bansal, C.J., Delhi. The O.P. went on charging the complainant on provisional basis in excessive manner without actual readings as the meter was shown to be defective all the time and some times MGC were charged and some times provisional bills were charged. The complainant was forced to make payment of Rs. 9,67,349 under the threat of disconnection. As per the statement of account the O.P. has charged more than Rs. 8 lakh in excess which is liable to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 3% per month. 3. Besides raising preliminary objection that the complaint is hop...

Batala Citi Cable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None appears. The application is rejected for default. If the amount payable under the impugned order is not deposited within six weeks from today, the appeal stand dismissed....

Sharp Menthol India Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC294

1. In this case, the Commissioner of Central Excise allowed the extension of the period of issue of show cause notice, required to be issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, by another six months under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the said Act.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of Menthol Crystal and Essential Oils (Pharmaceutical grade) falling under tariff item No. 30039021 and 33012400, 33012510 etc. of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Officers on 18.7.2006 seized 1938 drums of Mentha Piperata oil and other goods from their godown. The appellants vide letter dated 18.8.2006 and 21.8.2006 requested to the Additional Director General of DGCEI to release the said goods as the same was meant for export as per pending order with them. It is seen from the letter dated 19.09.2006 of the Additional Director General addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise recommen...

Kakda Rolling Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC409

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner dated 17.3.2005, holding that the furnace installed in the factory of the appellant is "pusher type" of furnace.2. The main grievance of the appellant voiced through its authorized representative is that, the Commissioner has relied on a report of the Assistant Commissioner without supplying a copy thereof to the appellant and without giving any opportunity to the appeal for dealing with it.3. It appears from the record that the Commissioner was concerned with the two issues, namely, whether the furnace installed in the appellant's factory was "pusher type" or "batch type" and whether the abatement claim by the appellant was allowable. It appears that earlier the Tribunal made an order on 9.5.2000, upholding the Commissioner's order dated 8.7.1999. That order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in writ petition No. 6519 of 2001 on 6.8.200, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for taking a fresh ...

The Financers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ261CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant seeks interim stay of the impugned order and waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amounts. The Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- for failure of registration under Section 75A of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty of Rs. 100/- per day from the date when the service tax became payable till the actual date of payment of the confirmed service tax amount under Section 76 of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 1,15,173/- under Section 78 of the said Act being equal to the demand of service tax confirmed against the assessee under Section 73, as per the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner.2. Section 76 of the Act provides that if any person, liable to pay service tax fails to pay it, he will have to pay in addition to the tax and interest thereon, a penalty which shall not be less than Rs. 100/-, but which may extend to Rs. 200/- for every day during which such failure continues subject to the maximum of service tax that he failed to pay. Section 76, therefor...