Delhi Court January 2009 Judgments

Chandanmal C. JaIn Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

R.N. Poddar, Member. - These appeals are directed against common adjudication order SDE/PKA/ADJ/181-184/B/98, dated 14-12-1998 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement emanated front 4 SCNs all dated 8-11-1996 imposing total penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs [Rs. 12 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and Rs. 8 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973] on each of the appellants in appeal Nos. 50 and 51 of 1999 i.e., Chandanmal C. Jain (Chandanmal) and Babulal Jain (Babulal) respectively besides separate total penalty of Rs. 90 lakhs [Rs. 45 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(b), Rs. 30 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(d) and Rs. 15 lakhs for contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FER Act, 1973] on each of the appellant i.e., appellant Nos. 52, 53 and 54 of 1999 Bhavarlal Jain (Bhavarlal) and Pravin Jain (Pravin) and Ashok K. Jugraj Jain (Ashok) respectively. The impugned adjudication order is emanated from 4 SCNs T-4/77/B/96 (SCN I), T-4/78/B/9...

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT311

Anil Kumar, J.CA No. 710/2007 (BY SIDDHARTH CLUTCHES PVT. LTD.) and CA No. 491/2007 (BY SH. RAJ KISHAN GOEL)1. The applicants Sh. Raj Kishan Goel (CA No. 491/2007) and M/s Siddharth Clutches Pvt. Ltd. (CA No. 710/2007) seek quashing of entire process of bidding and sale whereby units Nos. 2 to 6 of M/s Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd were sold in favour of M/s. Morgan Ventures Ltd nominee of M/s. R.N. Marwah and Co. and seekECHO is on. acceptance of their bids of Rs. 80,25,00,000/- and Rs. 70,00,00,000/- respectively.2. The applicant/Raj Kishan Goel contended that units 2 to 6 have been sold to a Chartered Accountancy firm, M/s. R.N. Marwah and Company who acted and brokered the bid for its nominee M/s Morgan Ventures Ltd. It is contended that M/s. R.N. Marwah and Co. being a firm of chartered accountants were individual and could not be involved in any manufacturing activity.3. According to the said applicant the entire process whereby the bid was processed and awarded, is vitiated by fraud...

Padam Mohan and anr. Vs. Anand Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT144

J.R. Midha, J.1. The appellant is the brother of deceased, Surinder Mohan who suffered injuries in a road accident and died on 12th June, 1995. The appellant filed a petition for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurance company of bus bearing No. DL-IP-2184 claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that his brother Surinder Mohan died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the road accident on 13th May, 1995.3. The case set up by the appellant before the learned Tribunal was that the deceased was hit by the offending bus on 13th May, 1995 and was initially taken to Hindu Rao Hospital and was later removed to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 14th May, 1995 in unconscious state and he remained unconscious till he died on 12th June, 1996. Para 23(iii) of the p...

J.K. Business School Vs. Amit Kapoor

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having denied the refund of fees in spite of having not attended even one semester of PGDMBA Course, the appellant has been vide impugned Order dated 15.5.2008 found guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as damages and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation and refund of Rs. 72,500 towards fees charged by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned Order were that in pursuance of Brochure and offer of the appellant School the respondent deposited Rs. 5,500 on 7.7.2006 and Rs. 72,500 as semester fees on 26.7.2006 for PGDBM plus MBA Degree as a two years full time course. On 19.8.2006 the respondent was shocked when he was asked to fill the admission form showing that the course being imparted would be a distance learning programme instead of a regular one. Therefore, on 8.9.2006 the respondent applied for refund...