Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 9 of about 265 results (0.022 seconds)M/S. Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. the A.A.i.F.R. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)4CompLJ362(Del)
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Though various points have been urged in this writ application, in essence, the issue to be adjudicated is whether the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') can proceed or not when either a petition for winding up of a company is pending or an order of winding up has been passed under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'Companies Act')? Incidentally further, question to be adjudicated is whether appointment of an official liquidator/liquidator under the Companies Act would take away jurisdiction of BIFR established under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (in short the 'Act') to deal with a reference made under Section 15 of the said Act? 2. Undisputed factual position is that BIFR refused to entertain application for reference made by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act, on the ground that an official liquidator had been appointed, in terms of the consent arrangement made between the parties. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Parmeshri Dass and Sons Vs. Uoi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ680
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the Act) seeking directions to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the court and for reference of the disputes to the arbitrator to be appointed as per terms of the contract, raises the question whether the petition was filed within three years from the date when the cause of arbitration arose, the limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. The petitioner filed the above petition alleging therein that it is a registered partnership firm respondents invited tenders for execution of the work named 'Provision of MT Complex & Misc Accn for RRH at Delhi Cantt'. The petitioner's tender was accepted. The contract documents were duly signed. The work was to commence on 17th December, 1991. Stipulated date of completion was 16th June, 1993 (18 months); General conditions of the contract provided for settlement of all claims and disputes between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Dena Bank Vs. Refrigeration and Airconditioning Enterprises and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ599
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff/bank praying that the defend-ant No.1 - partnership firm may be deemed to have been served on the grounds that the summons were duly served on the partners of the firm (defendants 2 and 3) who have been proceeded ex parts. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (the contesting defendants) have filed a reply opposing the application. 2. Brief facts are: the plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,93,083.13/-, along with pendente lite and future interest against the defendant No.1 - a partnership firm, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (partners of defendant, No.1) and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Satta Banerjee who was a partner of defendant No.1 and also the guarantor. On 29th January, 1997 summons/notices were issued for serv-ice upon defendants by ordinary process as well as by registered AD post. On the same day local commissioner was appointed with the directions to proceed to the Factory premises...
Tag this Judgment!Department of Customs Vs. Parvinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(73)ECC66
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Reference to the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act is to the 'Judicial Magistrate' and not the 'Executive Magistrate'. This he says on strength of the terms used in Section 104 which provides that every person arrested under subsection (1) shall without necessary delay be taken to the Magistrate. Since the term 'Magistrate' in Section 104 implies a 'Judicial Magistrate' in the first instance the term 'Magistrate' used in the Act would connote only a 'Judicial Magistrate'. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. This is a case where the Customs Authority moved an application under Section 110 of the Customs Act for disposal of sized goods which were required to be verified u/s. 110(1B) by the Magistrate who was required to certify the correctness of inventory so prepared and otherwise as per the provisions of Subclauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 110(1B). Upon such ...
Tag this Judgment!indodan Industries Ltd. Vs. A.A.i.F.R. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas218(Delhi); 2000(55)DRJ541
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Though various points have been urged in this writ application, in essence, theissue to be adjudicated is whether the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') can proceed or not when either a petition for winding up of a company is pending or an order of winding up has been passed under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'Companies Act')? Incidentally further question to be adjudicated is whether appointment of an official liquidator/liquidator under the Companies Act would take away jurisdiction of BIFR established under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (in short the 'Act') to deal with a reference made under Section 15 of the said Act? 2. Undisputed factual position is that BIFR refused to entertain application for reference made by the petitioned under Section 15 of the Act, on the ground that an official liquidator had been appointed, in terms of the consent arrangement made between the parties. The observa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct T ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Del)554
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), is challenged by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the MTNL) on the purported ground that there was no under assessment of income or escapement of income requiring reassessment and the impugned notice which was issued on the basis of mere change of opinion about allowability or otherwise of an expenditure is invalid, inoperative and unsustainable.2. Factual position in a nutshell, as stated by the petitioner, is as follows :(a) Petitioner was incorporated as a limited company on 28-2-1986, for the purpose of establishment, maintenance and working of telephone services for metros of Delhi and Mumbai and license for effecting the same was granted by the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as `the Telegraph Act'), initially for...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Union Connectors (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT628TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the classification of insulated wire/cable fitted with connectors. The respondents M/s. Union Connectors (P) Ltd. sought its classification under sub-heading 85.29 of the Tariff on the ground that they were parts of the television/radio sets. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise who finalised the provisional classification lists observed that the goods in question - insulated wire/cable fitted with connectors were not parts of the television/radio sets. He classified them as insulated electric cables fitted with connectors under sub-heading 8544.90. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held the same to be classifiable under Heading 8536.90 as electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electrical circuits. When the matter was called no one appeared for the respondents. In their communication dated 7-7-2000 the respondents had prayed for adjournm...
Tag this Judgment!Vani Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT133TriDel
1. Arguing the petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty Shri R. Santhanam, ld. Counsel submits that the applicant is a processor having proprietary interest in another factory which is mainly concerned with knitting of the fabrics. He submits that notification exempting such unit from the purview of Section 3A was amended on 13.01.1999 whereunder units engaged in knitting were covered by the exemption clause. He submits that the Department has primarily relied upon particular interpretation that the knitting unit should be primarily and substantially engaged in the manufacture of fabrics. He submits that this interpretation of the Department that the unit of the applicant was not manufacturing sufficient knitted fabrics to mean their entire work of processing is an independent work. He submits that the applicant had a knitting unit. This knitting unit is primarily and substantially knitting the cloth. He submits that there is no requirement that the processing unit shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Cyanides and Chemicals Limited Vs. Designated Authority
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC631
1. This appeal is directed against the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of 'Sodium Cyanide' under notification No. 83/2000, dated 6-6-2000. The duty imposed is the difference between the amount mentioned in Column (4) of the Table in the notification and the landed value of imported sodium cyanide per metric tonne.2. The only grievance raised by the appellants is with regard to currency in which anti-dumping duty has been imposed. The appellants had canvassed in the investigation proceedings carried out by the Designated Authority that the duty should be imposed in US dollars in order to ensure that the protection provided to domestic industry through imposition of anti-dumping duty does not get eroded, during the validity period of the said duty, on account of depreciation of the Indian rupee. However, this plea of the appellant was not accepted by the Designated Authority and that Authority recommended anti-dumping duty in Indian rupee. The Ministry of Finance which issued...
Tag this Judgment!Monsanto Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT739TriDel
1. The dispute is with regard to the valuation of ice cream manufactured by the appellants. They classify their wholesale dealers into different zones. They have also a system of varying discounts, which they extend based on the quantity of purchase. In respect of zone one (Delhi), their purchasers are Kwality Food and Ice Cream Ltd. and Kwality Restaurant and Ice Cream. To both these buyers, they gave a discount of 35% as against the varying discount of 10% to 25% given to buyers of other zones. The impugned orders disallowed the discount allowed to the two dealers of Delhi, holding that they are related to the manufacturer and that is the reason for granting them a higher discount. Accordingly, the discount for the purpose of assessment was limited to the lowest percentage i.e. 10% only. The learned counsel representing the appellants submits that there is no legal basis for restricting the discount to 10% in respect of sales to the two Delhi buyers. He refers to the finding in the ...
Tag this Judgment!