Delhi Court October 2001 Judgments

Champagne Indage Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(140)ELT71(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. Since the pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. The petitioner secured a license for the manufacture of Sparkling Wine (Champagne) on 29th of July, 1985 from the Central Government, subject to certain conditions, attached to export oriented units (hereinafter referred to as 'the EOU'). By its communication dated 27th of May, 1996, the Central Government permitted the petitioner to withdraw from the 100% EOU Scheme subject to complying with certain conditions. The conditions which were required to be complied with as annexed to the letter dated 27th May, 1996 were as follows:'STANDARD CONDITIONS GOVERNING WITHDRAWAL FROM 100% EOU SCHEME a. Application customs and excise duties shall be paid, on the imported and indigenous capital goods, raw materials, components, consumables, spares and finished goods in stock. b. The Penalty, imposed by the appropriate Authority under the Foreign Trade (D...

Om Prakash Vs. Usha Rani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT35; 2002(61)DRJ745

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The report of the Special Committee on basis of which the Partnership Act, 1932 was passed later in paragraph 17 noticed:'The outlines of the scheme are briefly as follows. The English precedent in so far as it makes registration compulsory and imposes a penalty for non-registration has not been followed, as it is considered that this step would be too drastic for a beginning in India, and would introduce all the difficulties connected with small or ephemeral undertakings. Instead, it is proposed that registration should lie entirely within the discretion of the firm or partner concerned; but, following the English precedent, any firm which is not registered will be unable to enforce its claim against third parties in the civil Court; and any partner who is not registered will be unable to enforce his claims either against third parties or against fellow partners'.2. The above extract refers to the English precedent which is partly followed and party not enacted in ...

Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Exide Corporation, Usa and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT539

Vijender Jain, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Mr. Lall, learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the non-applicant/plaintiff has not complied with the provision of Order 39 Rule 3. He has contended that it was mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to serve the defendants within the time stipulated by the Court, in view of specific order passed by this Court, while granting ex parte injunction order on 25.4.1997. Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 is not a mere formality but the same has to be construed as an obligation on the part of the parties and it is the duty of the Court to see that the compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 is made when an ex parte injunction order is granted by the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the application/defendant has relied upon Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. 50 (1993) DLT 492.2. It is was furth...

Union of India Vs. P.M. Hinduja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT246; 2002(61)DRJ783

Sharda Aggarwal, J. 1. Petitioner has directed this petition against the judgment dated 15th February, 1999 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal), by which O.A. No. 818/98 filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. The respondent had joined Indian Meteorological Department on 9th March, 1948 where he was declared a permanent L.D.C. w.e.f. 1st January, 1956. He was sent on deputation to O.N.G.C. w.e.f. 22/24th September, 1959. There he was permanently absorbed w.e.f. 7th June, 1962. The respondent's technical resignation from Government Service was accepted with effect from the said date. The question for consideration is whether respondent on absorption in public sector undertaking i.e. O.N.G.C. was eligible for pro-rata pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity based on length of his qualifying service under the Government till the date of his absorption. On the date of his absorption in O.N.G.C., the retirement benefits of his service ren...

Consulting Engineering Services (India) Ltd. Vs. Department of Agricul ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(63)DRJ276

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. By this order, main petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order shall stand disposed of as the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is deemed as reply to the main petition. 2. Ex parte order was passed on 19.2.2001 restraining the respondents, its servants, employees and/or agents from giving effect to its impugned letter of termination dated 12th February, 2001 and also encashing the bank guarantee No. 25/89 dated 16th August, 2000 on the representation that contact has not been terminated in terms of Clause 7.4 read with Clause 3.0 of the agreement nor has Clause 11.1 of the agreement been complied with by the respondent. 3. Relevant facts need to be recapitulated in brief. These are as under:- 4. A project for Early warning System (EWS) for monitoring of Indian Agriculture was given to the petitioner M/s. Consulting Engineering Services (India) Lt...

Vardhaman Containers and Papers Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Heard. The appellant was not a party before the Tribunal below and the case of the appellant is that the property Lal Dora land measuring 200 sq. yards with electricity power out of Khasra No. 299, situated at Gokal Pur under Lal Dorailaka, Shahdara, Delhi being sold as per Recovery Certificate which was given by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below on the basis of the final order passed in O. A. No.93.6/95 is the property of the appellant on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed for transfer of that property having been executed by Ms.Manju Saxena, defendant No. 3 in the said O.A., in favour of the appellant.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that according to the records, Ms. Manju Saxena appears to have created an equitable mortgage of the said property with the respondent Bank on 5.9.1991, much after the said property was sold by Ms. Manju Saxena to the appellant. The contention is that on the date when the said equitable mortgage was created, Ms. Manju Saxena was n...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.L. Passi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)85CTR(Del)172; [2002]254ITR225(Delhi)

D.K. Jain J. 1. These are three appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the' Act'), arising out of the decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in ITAs Nos. 2537/Delhi of1990 and 627/Delhi of 1993 (assessment year 1986-87), ITAs Nos. 1013/Delhi of1991 and 3891/Delhi of 1991 (assessment year 1987-88) and ITA No. 1014/Delhi of 1991 (assessment year 1988-89).2. The issue involved being common to all the years, this order will govern all the three appeals. Since the issue has been discussed in greater detail in the Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1986-87, we will refer to the facts of that year, as illustrative. The following questions have been posed for adjudication.'1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in accepting the claim of depreciation by the assessed on the trucks allegedly purchased at the end of the accounting year ? 2. Whether the Tribunal is corre...

Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Anant Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT123

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The present civil suit has been filed by Punjab & Sindh Bank (herinafter described as the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 2,73,884/- as the principal amount against the defendants with interest besides seeking a preliminary decree under Order 34 Rule 4 against defendant no. 10.2. The facts alleged are that defendant no. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. On 15th July, 1980 defendant no. 1 through it director had approached the plaintiff and opened a current account by deposit of a sum of Rs. 5000/-. It had requested that it would require draft facility in the current account referred to above to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- for their business including the then subsisting advance. Security of immovable property and hypothecation of stocks besides surety of defendants 2 and 3 and one O P Poddar had been offered. The request of defendant no. 1 was acceded to through its director defendant no. 2. They executed the documents (a) a promissory note on 21s...

Shri Dharmik Sabha (Regd.) Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Police and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT39; 2002(61)DRJ774

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common order, I would be disposing of CW.No. 6211/2001, filed by Shri Dharmik Sabha as also CM. 1051/2001, filed in CW. 5288/2000 by the petitioner therein, Shri Dharmik Ramlila Committee, as these relate to the issue of holding of Ramlila and Dussehra functions at Mahavir Swami Park, Kailash Nagar, Delhi.2. For an appreciation of the controversy involved, some of the relevant facts may be noted:-CW.No. 5288/2000 had been filed by Shri Dharmik Ramlila Committee, seeking allotment of the entire Mahavir Swami Park to the petitioner Society and for cancellation of the permission granted to respondent No. 4 i.e. Shri Dharmik Sabha for holding Ramlila in half of the ground in the said park.3. Rule was issued in CW.No. 5288/2000 on 27.92000. The learned Single Judge also disposed of CM. 8164/2000, filed by the petitioner, seeking an order for holding the Ramlila celebrations in the entire ground and a prohibition on respondent No. 4 from holding parallel celebrat...

Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ216

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Shri S B Saran had been appointed as the sole arbitrator. He had submitted his awarded on 20th November, 1997. The petitioner M/s Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd. filed the application for making the award a rule of the court and for a decree to be passed in terms of the award. 2. On behalf of Union of India objections have been filed against the said award. Reply has been filed by the applicant and the assertions made by the objectors/Union of India were controverter. One objection with which the court is presently concerned is that it has been alleged by the applicant that objections are not maintainable because the award has since been implemented. The arbitrator had rejected the claim of the parties for damages. The Union of India had implemented the said award. Vide letter dated 22nd April, 1998 the Union of India had paid the amount and consequently the objections were not maintainable. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid the short question that comes up for consi...