Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2002
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Shri Jai Prakash Saini, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant, an ex-serviceman, re-employed with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as a Clerk-cum-Coin Note Examiner, in August, 1997 suffered stomach ailment, consulted the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, for treatment, who, after examining the complainant, gave treatment which provided only temporary relief to the complainant and gradually two glands on the neck and one gland on the left side of the face of the complainant appeared. The Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, under whose treatment the complainant was, after a few days of medication advised the complainant to consult some surgical specialist. On the advice of the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant approached the doctor at the Armed Forces C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-06-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC478
1. On 9.5.99, the respondent was intercepted at the Customs Barrier at Nepalganj Road on his way from Nepal to India, by officers of the Customs. 41 Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500 were recovered alongwith currency notes of lower denomination from his person and the same were seized by the officers believing that the currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500 were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. After recording a statement of the respondent under Section 107 of the Customs Act, the department booked a case against him and accordingly issued a show-cause notice to him for confiscating the currency notes and imposing penalty on him.The original authority ordered absolute confiscation of the seized goods worth Rs. 20,500 (Rs. 500 x 41) and imposed on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 500 under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appeal preferred by the party against the order of the original authority was allowed by the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR974]; (2003)ILLJ341Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These three LPAs involving similar questions of law and fact were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The fact of the matter however is being noticed from LPA 413/2002The respondent herein was employed in horticulture department as a Mali. He was transferred to Civil Lines Zone in October 1983. His services were terminated on November 10, 1984 without assigning any reason. According to the respondent on November 15, 1984 while he was going back to his house after performing his duties, he sustained injuries in a fight with another villager and remained confined to Hindu Rao Hospital. He was treated as out door patient for two months. A case under Section 307/324 IPC was registered against him. After his recovery he reported for duty but he was not allowed to do so. In the criminal case, however, he was acquitted.An industrial dispute in relation to the order of retrenchment was raised, inter alia, on the ground that the same w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : [2002]125TAXMAN509(Delhi)
ORDERThe Income Tax Department had filed a criminal complaints under section 276C of Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were summoned. The petitioners appeared in response to summons and they were granted exemption from personal appearance. However, on the next date 15-1-2002, the petitioners who are the resident of Faridabad did not come to the court as they had already been granted exemption the counsel Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate through whom the petitioners were exempted from appearance also did not reach the court in time so the exemption was withdrawn and case was listed for 1-4-2002 for pre charge evidence. Later on petitioners moved another application claiming exemption from personal appearance. That application was supported by the affidavits of the counsel for the petitioner wherein it was averred that Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner could not reach court in time Novel as he was busy in High Court but his junior Mr. N.P. Mishra, Advocate a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-27-2002
Reported in : 101(2002)DLT205
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Eastern Book Company, a well known publishing concern had filed two suits bearing Nos. 624/2000 and 758/2000 before this Court for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, moral rights, unfair competition, damages etc against the respondents.The appellant is a publisher of a well-known journal known as Supreme Court Cases. It allegedly reports all reportable and unreportable judgments of the Supreme Court. In 1996, the second appellant introduced a data based package on CD-ROMs for finding out the Supreme Court ruling known as SCC-Online Case Finder. The respondents launched a software package entitled 'The Laws' and 'Jurix'.The said suits were founded, inter alia, on infringement of copyright and unfair competition. Copyright was claimed in the copy-editing of the judgment. According to the appellant, the respondent had copied the said notes and copied the text of the judgment as published in the SCC and thereby infringed its copyright.2. Various ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-09-2002
Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ709
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition presents an interesting question of law in novel circumstances. The Respondent Company maintains a Current Account with the Petitioner Bank. The Petitioner's case is that it had honoured a Cheque drawn by the Respondent Company in the sum of Rs. 2,11,94,000/- without there being corresponding funds in the Current Account maintained between the parties. It is not in dispute that Overdraft limits and/or Loan facilities had not been granted to the Respondent Company. Nevertheless, admittedly by mistake, the Cheque for the afore-mentioned sum of Rs. 2,11,94,000/- was cleared without sufficient funds being available, and payments had been released to M/s. Charu Trading. A Statutory Notice was issued to the Respondent Company in reply to which the above narrated circumstances were highlighted. The Respondent Company has denied its liability for making any payment to the Petitioner.2. The Learned Counsel relies on Bank of Maharashtra v. United Construction C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-23-2002
Reported in : (2003)(87)ECC176
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, therefore, are being taken up together. S/Shri Charan Singh and Jagraj Singh, owners of the trucks, filed appeals against the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on their trucks. S/Shri Jai Bhagwan and Pappu filed appeals challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. ten thousand under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.5.99, two. trucks were intercepted by the Customs officers and 25 bags containing small cardamoms were recovered from each truck. Statements of Shri Jai Bhagwan, driver of one of the trucks and Shri Pappu, cleaner of one of the trucks, were recorded as other driver and cleaner ran away from the spot. S/Shri Jai Bhagwan and Pappu, in their statements, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted that the smuggled cardamoms were loaded in their truck by Shri Raja Babu and they were to receive higher rate of fare a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Oct-23-2002
Reported in : (2003)(161)ELT618TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, therefore, are being taken-up together. S/Sh. Charan Singh and Jagraj Singh, owners of the trucks, filed appeals against the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine on their trucks. S/Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Pappu filed appeals challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. ten thousand under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6-5-99, two trucks were intercepted by the Customs officers and 25 bags containing small cardamoms were recovered from each truck. Statements of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, driver of one of the trucks and Sh. Pappu, cleaner of one of the trucks, were recorded as other driver and cleaner ran away from the spot. S/Sh. Jai Bhagwan and Pappu, in their statements, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, admitted that the smuggled cardamoms were loaded in their truck by Sh. Raja Babu and they were to receive higher rate of fare and also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Nov-01-2002
Reported in : (2003)85ITD478(Delhi)
1. These two appeals--one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue emanate from the order passed by the CIT(A) on 4th Dec., 2000, in relation to asst. yr. 1997-98. As both the appeals are emerging out of the same order, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose of both these appeals by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Briefly stated the facts of the case, as collected from the orders of the authorities below, statement of facts and other material before us, are that the assessee-company, incorporated in and a resident of Hongkong was deriving lease income from lease of transponder capacity.It was engaged in operating telecommunication satellites located in US stationary orbit of 36,000 kms above equator in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the International Telecommunication Union under the United Nations. In the year under consideration it operated two satellites available at its disposal, namely, Asiasat-I, taken by the assessee on lease located at 10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-13-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Delhi103; 101(2002)DLT229
Anil Dev Singh, J:1. By this public interest writ petitioner seeks: (i) a direction to the respondents to protect the rights of innocent conscientious consumers who object to the use of animals in whole or in part or their derivatives in food, cosmetics and drugs, etc., by making the manufacturers and packers thereof to disclose the ingredients of the aforesaid products so that they make an informed choice with regard to their consumption; (ii) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of cosmetics, drugs and articles of food for complete and full disclosure of the ingredients of their products being sold to consumers; (iii) a declaration that the consumers have a right of making an informed choice between the products made or derived from animal and non-animal ingredients; and (iv) a direction to the manufacturers and packers of food, cosmetic and drugs that the products made from animals should bear an easily identifiable symbol conveying that it has an animal ingredient. The peti...
Tag this Judgment!