Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri Parkash Chander Bhalla Vs. Shri Sudesh Chander Bhalla and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT149; 2008(101)DRJ233

Anil Kumar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of plaintiff's suit, CS (OS) 3198 of 1998 for partition of properties of Late Shri Hans Raj Bhalla, Property bearing No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and a plot of land bearing Khasra No. 440 (measuring 563.59 square yards) situated at the main road, opposite plot No. T-3, Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak, Haryana and the moveable properties of late Shri Hans Raj Bhalla stipulated in the schedule annexed with the plaint. After filing of the suit, an award was given in respect of some of his properties which became final and thereforee, suit remains for the partition of the Property bearing No. 22, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the moveable properties. Suit No. CS(OS) 503 of 1990 is a suit for permanent injunction seeking a restrain against Sh. Suresh Chand Bhalla, defendant No. 1 that he and his family members be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of two rooms, bath...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Rati and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2758

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant, National Insurance Co.Ltd., insurer of the offending vehicle has preferred an appeal challenging the impugned order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned MACT. The impugned award has arisen out of the claim petition, viz., Suit No. 102/2007 filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 against the appellant as well as against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 claiming compensation for the death of Shri Rajiv Kumar.2. The brief facts, which are necessary for deciding the present appeal inter alia, are that on 24.6.2005 at about 2.20 A.M., the deceased was plying the TSR being registration No. DL-1RC-0476 on Rohini main road towards Sector V and when he reached near the red light point of BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, suddenly one bus came from the direction of Japanese Park in a rash and negligent manner and hit the said TSR scooter as a result of which the deceased fell out of the TSR and sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot.3. Counsel for the appellant contends tha...

Desh Deepak Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT293

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. Criminal MC No. 639/2005 is directed against the summoning order dated 18th July, 2001 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi ('MM') summoning the Petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 ('NI Act') in Complaint Case No. 639/1999 filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By the impugned order, the learned MM after perusing the complaint, the cheques in question and the pre-summoning evidence concluded that there was sufficient material to summon the accused under Section 138 of NI Act and that 'no other offence other than Section 138 of NI Act is made out.'2. To the extent that the learned MM declined to summon the accused under Section 420 and 406 IPC, the complainants Respondents 2 and 3 filed revision petitions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'). Initially the revision petitions were dismissed on 10th April 2004 as being not maintainable. However, this Court by an order dated 17th August 2004 remand...

Arinits Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rockwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC595; 149(2008)DLT123; 2008(101)DRJ173

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that Delhi Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit which is instituted by the appellant as plaintiff. Having held thus, a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge to return the plaint to the appellant for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. 2. A suit was filed by the appellant herein as a summary suit seeking for recovery of Rs. 20,53,944/- against the defendants and also for interest @ 18% per annum. The defendants entered appearance and thereafter the plaintiff moved an application for service of summons for judgment upon the defendants. Summons for judgment were duly served upon the defendants and immediately thereafter, they filed an application for leave to defend the present suit. The defendants also moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking up the plea that this ...

Praveen Mehta (Mrs.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. This is an unfortunate case of act of misfeasance, oppressive and mala fide by the public officer, i.e. of the DDA that deprived the complainant the possession of a flat for inordinately long time for no fault of his. 2. The complainant was allotted flat No.194, 2nd Floor, Sector 23, Pocket-A, Rohini on cash down basis in the draw held on 7.8.1996 @ Rs. 5,89,268.75. He paid to the OP Rs. 5,92,045.94 by 18.11.96 and vide letter dated 18.12.96 received from the OP on 3.2.1997 submitted the necessary documents and prayed for delivery of possession. However, the possession letter was not issued despite personal visits by the complainant and the OP vide letter dated 4.6.1997, received by the complainant in September, 1997, asked the complainant to submit the same documents which the complainant had submitted earlier. Complainant met Mr. Juneja, Assistant Director, MIG (Housing) and all the documents were found in the DDA file. However, on the insistence of...

General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Abhijit Saini and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent got his vehicle insured with the appellant through its agent respondent-3 covering the risk of damage and theft of vehicle. Vehicle met with an accident and fell into deep gorge while returning from Vaishno Devi to Delhi at Damtaal, Distt. Kangra, HP. The vehicle was towed and the police report was lodged at Damtaal on the next date. Appellant was also informed about the accident. However, the claim of the respondent was repudiated firstly on the ground that agent had played a fraud by not depositing the premium with the appellant-company and secondly that the respondent has taken inordinately long time in informing the appellant-company. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. 2. While holding the repudiation of the claim by the appellant unjust and illegal, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 18.9.2007 giving the following direction to the appellant: (i) Appel...

Cce Vs. Gupta Brothers Conduit Pipe

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(226)ELT124TriDel

1. Revenue has filed these appeals against order-in-appeal No.95-96/CE/JAL/06 DT.28.2.06 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The main ground of the revenue for appealing against the impugned order is that there is no evidence of payment of duty on the goods supplied by Prince Agro & Allied Inds. and Gupta Brothers Conduit Pipe Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. Once there is no evidence for payment of duty, the cenvat credit cannot be taken even though it is deemed Cenvat credit.3. Learned Authorised Representative argued that the conditions stipulated in the relevant notification No. 58/97 dt.30.8.97 have not been fulfilled for availing the deemed Cenvat credit. He stated that the recipient should have ensured that the appropriate duty was paid by the manufacturer.4. Ld. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 namely Prince Agro & Allied Inds. states that it is not correct that respondent No. 2 did not discharge any duty liability. Under the scheme of ...

Cce Vs. Maghan Paper Nukks (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC160

1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned, order-in-appeal No. 246/CE/CHD/06 dt.30.8.06.The Departmental Officers verified the stock in respect of manufactured goods of the respondent and found that it was in excess. Hence, proceedings were initiated. The original authority confiscated the excess goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- and also penalty of Rs. 1,14,003/- under the relevant Central Excise Rules. When the respondent appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals) relying on various case laws and also the fact that there was no admitted (sic) to clear the goods clandestinely. The Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the confiscation and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs only for the technical lapse of non-accountal of the goods. According to the revenue, the Commissioner has erred in observing that the accountal of the goods was done on estimated basis. It is stated that the excess quantity of goods deducted by the visiting staff from the recorded and bundle of st...

R.M. Polypack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(129)ECC100

1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.15/CE/Alld/2006 dt.23.2.06 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals). Allahabad.2. Ld. Advocate who appears for the appellant stated that the demand in this case relates to the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs by the job worker in respect of the goods manufactured on job work basis and returned to the principal manufacturer. The job worker apart from receiving the raw-materials from the principal manufacturer obtains on his own certain inputs which he uses for the manufacture of goods on his own account and also on account of the principal manufacturer.According to the revenue, the job worker clears the said goods to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty and therefore, he would not be entitled to take any cenvat credit at all. Ld. Advocate argued that the facts of this case are identical to the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune Larger Bench has ruled that the job worker wh...

P.N. Ram Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(129)ECC78

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order, whereby penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The penalty was imposed on the appellant, as he was working at that time as Inspector of Customs and he has taken the sample of the goods in question which were subsequently found to be mis-declared in respect of valuation to avail the higher draw back. The allegation is that without the direction of superior, he has withdrawn the sample which was subsequently shown to the higher authorities. The allegation is also that when he was directed to make market inquiry in respect of the impugned goods, he did not made any market inquiry and submitted the report on the basis of trade opinion given by un-concerned person showing that the declared value is correct.Subsequently, it was found that the trade opinions were procured and no inquiry was conducted.2. Contention of appellant is that in the show cause notice the allegation against ...