Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

P.P. Fabrics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT823TriDel

1. The question to be answered in these 12 appeals in short compass is whether fabrics received by job worker under Central Excise Rules 57F(2) which is subjected to process of heat setting and stentering returned to the principal manufacturers are required to pay duty at the hands of job workers.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the process of heat setting and stentering. They were receiving the fabrics under the provisions of Rule 57F(4) from the principal manufacturers. A dispute therefore arose as to whether duty was required to be paid at the time of sending the processed fabrics to the principal manufacturers by the job worker. The Commissioner in the impugned order relied on the decision of this Tribunal where there was difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench, holding that duty was required to be paid by the job worker at the time of sending processed fabrics to the principal manufacturers.M. Tex & D.K. Process...

Raj Kishan and Co. Vs. Chairman and M.D., N.T.P.C. and anr

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR75(Delhi)

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner has prayed for the revocation of the authority of Respondent No. 2 to act as the Arbitrator and for the appointment of another person as the Arbitrator in his tead. The petition has been opposed, inter alia, on the grounds that this Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Initially, by Orders dated 19.12.1994, this objection was sustained, in large measure because of the Judgment in Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs . Prasad Trading Company, : [1991]3SCR391 . The Hon'ble Division Bench however reversed the order holding that 'Courts at Delhi obviously have jurisdiction. The appellant has not brought the original contract to the notice of the Hon'ble Single Judge. In this view of the matter the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Hon'ble Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law.' Learned counsel for the Respondent attempted to resurrect and reagitate this objection before me, but I have de...

S.S. Jetley Vs. Dda and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(3)ARBLR389(Delhi)

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an Arbitration Application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been averred that on the arising of the disputes between the parties, the Arbitration Clause was invoked by the Petitioner in terms of its letter dated 22.7.1998. A reminder was sent to the persona designata for the appointment of an Arbitrator on 25.8.1998. Hence the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked. 2. Even the filing of the petition has not galvanised the DDA to take immediate action in appointing an Arbitrator. Instead, it has displayed its obduracy in contesting the petition, has filed a Reply to the Claims under disputes and has prayed that the petition may be dismissed. At the time of final hearing, after the petition has needlessly blocked precious and scarce judicial time for almost two years, learned counsel for the DDA has submitted that Shri Som Dev, S.E. (Arbn) II, DDA has now been appointed as the Arbitrator. 3. The conduct tha...

Texla Service Centre Vs. Raseel Kohli

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ477

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an application filed by Smt. Pamela Manmohan Singh, legal representative of late Smt. Raseel Kohli, who was the Defendant in the suit, The suit is for the Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 13.8.1984 in respect of property bearing No. B-6, Jangpura, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The application incorrectly states that the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Orders dated 1.9.1989. Infact, on that date, the suit was withdrawn by leave of the Court. After an inordinate and unexplained lapse of over two and a half years, the present application has been filed seeking a declaration that the three Sale Deeds dated 6.12.1988 allegedly executed by late Major K.V. Kohli, brother of the Applicant, stand annulled, cancelled and declared null and void. It has also been pleaded that the Applicant has already filed a suit, being Suit No. 695/90, for Declaration that the Sale Deeds do not confer any title and are invaldated, null and void. 2. Havin...

Cimmco Ltd. Vs. M/S. Toepfer International-asia Pte. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ490

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the United India Insurance Co. Limited. It is contended in this application, inter alia, that there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1, namely, M/s. Teopfer International-Asia Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Teopfer') and the Applicant. The facts are not in serious dispute. A contract had been entered into between the Plaintiff and Teopfer for the supply of a quantity of 508.213 metric tons of Indian Toasted Soyabean Extraction FAQ Flakes-Yellow. Some controversy has been generated on the issue whether this was a FOB Contract or FAS Contract. The Plaintiff appears to have made supply against this contract which was to be shifted to Defendant No.1. The consignment was placed upon barge 'SEVARAM' which sank alongside the vessel M.V. MOSKOVSKIY KOMSOMLETS on 25.9.1991. As a consequence the consignment was lost. The claim...

Baij Nath Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(57)DRJ45

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner as well as Registrar, Cooperative Societies holding petitioner not entitled to become member of the respondent no.6/Society in terms of the bye-law of the Society as well as under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. 2. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the bye-laws of the Society which prescribes a prohibition cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. By-law 5 (e) which is relevant to decide the controversy between the parties is as follows: '5(e). He or his wife (she or her husband), in case of a woman or any of his/her dependent does not own a dwelling house or plot for building a house in Delhi, New Delhi, Dehi Cantonment.' 3. He says that owning of an un partitioned common area measuring 38 sq. yards in a Village Lal D...

B. Shreepathy Rao and anr. Vs. Uoi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(1)ARBLR120(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ., 1. This writ petition stated to have been filed in public interest, in essence challenges the tenders floated by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The tender, covered by tender document No. 212/2/99-B(d) relates to contract for FM broadcasting through private agencies. 2. Some of the eligibility conditions of applicants are as follows: 1. Eligibility for Applicants: Companies registered in India under Indian Companies Act, 1956 unless disqualified vide Clause-2 below are eligible to apply. Further, all the share holding in the company should be by Indiana except for limited share holding by Foreign Institutional Investors, Non-resident Indiana, Persons of Indian Origin and Overseas Corporate Bodies subject to such ceiling as decided by Ministry of Finance from time to time. 2. Disqualification of holding of licence: 2.1 General Disqualification: (a) Companies not incorporated in India; (b) Any company controlled by a person con...

Ram Nath Sharma (Deceased) Through His L.R. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2000Delhi447; 2000(56)DRJ612

ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner as well as Registrar, Cooperative Societies holding petitioner not entitled to become member of the respondent No. 6/Society in terms of the bye-law of the Society as well as under Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules. 1973.2. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the bye-laws of the Society which prescribes a prohibition cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner. Bye-law 5(e) which is relevant to decided (sic) the controversy between the parties is as follows :'5(e) He or his wife (she or her husband), in case of a woman or any of his/her dependent does not own a dwelling house or plot for building a house in Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi Cantonment.'3. He says that owning of an unpartioned common area measuring 38 sq. yards in a Village ...

iqbal Chand Khurana Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)286

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.On a reference made under section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Hon'ble President Tribunal has been pleased to constitute this Special Bench to resolve the conflict involved on the following issue, arising on account of contradictory decisions of two Benches of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal.'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of winning of Rs. 1,31,37,733 out of the unsold stocks of lottery tickets is liable to be taxed as profits and gains of business or it can be construed to be winnings from lotteries, and as such, eligible for the deduction under section 80TT of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ',2. The facts leading to formation of Special Bench are that Tribunal Delhi Bench 'E' was seized of the matter involved in ITA No. 95/Del/1990 in which ground No. 2 reads as under :That the learned Deputy Commissioner erred in law and facts in not allowing the claim of the assessed under section 80TT at R...

Santosh Kumari Vs. the Chairman, M/S. Ispat Alloys Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed against the orders of the District Forum-I dated the 9th January, 1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 3186/93 entitled Smt. Santosh Kumari v. The Chairman, M/s. Ispat Alloys Ltd. and Ors. 2. In brief, the facts, relevant, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stating therein that the appellant/complainant was the holder of 100 Part B secured fully Convertible Debentures of M/s. Ispat Alloys Limited (respondent) @ Rs. 160/- each. In the month of December, 1992, the appellant received a letter of option dated 24.12.1992 alongwith Consent Form, from the respondents for conveying her consent for conversion of Part B 14% Convertible Debentures either into non-convertible 14% secured Debentures or equity shares. The appellant, as per requirements, sent the said Consent Form alongwith 100 Part B Convertible Debentures to the respondent ...