Delhi Court November 2001 Judgments

State Trading Corporation of India Limited Vs. Madhu Enterprises Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)836

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff in the instant case is State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act,1956. It is having one of its Branch Offices in Delhi situated at En Kay House,3-4, Shopping Centre, Dharam Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. One of the business activities of the plaintiff is sale of second hand imported cars and other vehicles. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the said Delhi Branch issued a Tender Notice No.DLH-44/Sept.25/81 dated 11.9.1981 for the sale of imported cars and other vehicles mentioned including a Mercedes Benz 300-D Sedan Car mentioned at S.No.3 in the said Tender Notice. In Suit No. 1260/85: response to the said Tender Notice, besides others, M/s.Madhu Enterprises (P) Ltd., defendant No.1, M/s.L.S.Bagla H.U.F., defendant No.2 and Shri Shyam Goel, defendant No.3 also offered their tenders for several cars mentioned in the aid Tender Notice and remitted Bank draft/pay-orders of the amount of...

Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Gobind Glass and Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(61)DRJ447

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(6)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the third Presiding Arbitrator to complete the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal for resolution of the inter se despute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 arising out of the contract dated 1st June 1996.2. Admittedly, Article 131 of the aforesaid contract between the parties provided that the Provision of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 and the rules made there under and any statutory modifications thereof, shall be deemed to have been formed part of the contract. Article 132 further provided as under:'Unless otherwise specified any dispute or difference whatsoever arising out of this contract which is not settled by mutual consultation shall be referred to two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by the SELLER, and the other to be appointed by the BUYER. The two Arbitrators shall appoint and Umpire, in advance of their consideration of any point...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT103

ORDERED UNDERSECTION 17-B OF THE I.D. ACT.5. The Labour Court/Tribunal has the power and discretion to award only a portion of the back-wages, although in normal circumstances the practice would be to grant them in full. Could it then not be reasonably argued that where only a percentage of back-wage are awarded, in further legal proceedings where the Award has been assailed by the Management, the High Court or the Supreme Court should normally give interim relief under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act only at the scale granted by the Labour Court in the impugned Award. Thus, if only 50 per cent back-wage are granted should this formula not be adhered to in writ proceedings also? Without in any manner diluting the discretion contained in the extraordinary powers vested in the High Court and the Supreme Court, the answer appears to be in the negative. It should not be forgotten that there is no inherent right of appealing/assailing an order/judgment/award and that this is granted by statute...

C. Lal Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT357

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both the parties have filed objections to the award dated 5th January, 1987 which has been forwarded by the Arbitrator for making rule of the court but now the counsel for the petitioner does not press the objections filed by the petitioner.2. It is settled law that scope of assailing the award is very limited. The court does not sit in appeal while examining the award and as such it is not a court to re-appreciate or re-appraise the evidence and disturb the finding of the fact or view of the arbitrator as to interpretation of terms of agreement even if such a view is erroneous. Unless and until there is complete non-application of mind and the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms of the agreement or beyond the arena of the agreement, court should always be reluctant to interfere with the award. Otherwise the very object and purpose of settling of disputes by the alternative devise of Arbitration would stand defeated. The genesis is that parties choose their forum af...

M/S. Super Electronics Vs. Cc Kolkatta

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT818TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order in appeal dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had affirmed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.7.99 disallowing the interest on the refund amount.3. The appellants in the year 1987 imported a consignment of polystyrene resin in the form of moulding power and cleared the goods through Calcutta Port Vide Bill of Entry No.I-1600 dated 9.9.87. For payment of C.V.duty the benefit of Notification No.133/86-CE dated 1.3.87 as amended vide Notification No.89/87-CE dated 1.3.87 was sought by them but the same was denied by the Customs authorities on the ground that the goods were not covered by that notification.Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was amended and C.V.duty was charged at the rate of 40% instead of 20% as as pleaded by the appellants. The appellants, however, made the payment and got the goods released. But, thereafter they filed claim for the refund of ...

Gallium Equipment (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)81ITD358(Delhi)

1. The main issue arising out of this appeal relates to the interpretation of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 43B, 2. During the year under consideration, the assessee had received employees contribution towards employees provident fund amounting to Rs. 1,48,916. The assessee was required to deposit the same within 15 days of the close of every month and grace period of 5 days. However, most of the payments made by the assessee were delayed payments. In the course of assessment proceedings, the details of payments were filed by the assessee. Since the payments had not been made within the due date as prescribed under Section 36(l)(va), the assessee was asked to show cause why the delayed payments be not disallowed under Section 36(l)(va). The assessee vide reply dt, 13th Jan., 1994 submitted that the amounts were deposited within the prescribed time-limit and hence the same could not be disallowed under Section 43B. However, the AO held the provisions of Section 43B were not attracted a...

R.S. Sethi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By the present OA, the applicant, an IAS Officer of AGMU Cadre of 1973 Batch, has challenged the order dated 26/27.8.1997 passed by the respondents imposing upon him the penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage for the period of two years with the further direction that he would not earn any increment during the said period of two years and that on expiry of the period, the reduction of pay would have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay.2. The facts leading to the present OA are as under. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its orders dated 29.11.94 requested Mr. Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy, former Judge of the Supreme Court to investigate into the conduct of the officers of Delhi Development Authority (DDA, for short) including its ex-officio Chairman at the relevant time, in handing over the possession of the suit land to M/s. Skipper Construction Company Private Limited before receiving the auction amount in full and also in conniving at the construction thereon as ...

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)83ITD137(Delhi)

1. The only issue arising out of this appeal is whether the entire sum of Rs. 15,68,50,000 received by the assessee against the assignment of the right to use the technology for three years is taxable in the year under consideration.2. The brief facts of the case are these. The assessee assigned the right to use its technical know-how for a period of three years to Escorts Ltd. for a lump sum consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs US $ which was to be received in Indian rupees under an tripartite agreement dated 14-7-1995. The parties to the agreement agreed for Escrow arrangement under Clause 1.04 according to which Citi Bank, NA, Connaught Circus, New Delhi was appointed as Escrow agent and consequently Escrow account was opened with Citi Bank. So the payment of the sum was guaranteed.This amount was deposited by Escorts Ltd. with Escrow agent after the completion of the legal formalities and the same was received by the assessee in Indian rupees amounting to Rs. 15,68,50,000. However, the a...

Pearl Polymers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The Special Bench has been constituted in this case to consider the following propositions : "(a) Whether profits from exports are not an essential precondition for relief under the provisions of Section 80HHC(3)(b) and such relief would be available even if there are losses in the business of exports ?" (b) "Whether the provisions of Section 80HHC(3)(b) are to be applied to profits like cash compensatory support received or receivable by the assesses against exports and duty of customs or excise repaid or repayable as drawback to the assessee against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duty Draw Back Rules, 1971 for the purposes of apportionment and computing profits derived from the export of goods of merchandise out of India ?" (c) "Whether the provisions of Section 80HHC(3)(b) would be applicable for apportionment of the export profits even in cases where the local business of the assessee is not in the same goods as are exported by it, having regard to the decision of...

Pearl Polymers Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Del)1

ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.The Special Bench has been constituted in this case to consider the following propositions :'(a) Whether profits from exports are not an essential precondition for relief under the provisions of section 80HHC(3)(b) and such relief would be available even if there are losses in the business of exports ?'(b) 'Whether the provisions of section 80HHC(3)(b) are to be applied to profits like cash compensatory support received or receivable by the assessed against exports and duty of customs or excise repaid or repayable as drawback to the assessed against exports under the Customs and Central Excise Duty Draw Back Rules, 1971 for the purposes of apportionment and computing profits derived from the export of goods of merchandise out of India ?'(c) 'Whether the provisions of section 80HHC(3)(b) would be applicable for apportionment of the export profits even in cases where the local business of the assessed is not in the same goods as are exported by it, having regard to t...