Delhi Court September 2002 Judgments

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Del)268; [2004]269ITR495(Delhi)

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alia, questioned the orders dt. 5th Jan., 1988, 18th Jan., 1988 and 11th Aug., 1987, passed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively. The basic fact of the matter is as follows :The petitioner is a public limited company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It entered into an agreement with Smith Tak Towage and Salvage(s) (P) Ltd., a Singapore based company in terms whereof the mooring job of the floating dock at Port Blair was entrusted to the latter. The said company was incorporated at Nhava Sheva Port near Bombay. The said contract was entered for at lump sum price of US $ 1,73,500.2. However, in terms of Clause 7 thereof, the work was to be completed within an estimated period of 16 days. Clause 6(C) of the said contract reads thus :Performance (a) Smith Tak shall undertake to use their best endeavors to perform and complete the work within the shortest possible time as described in Clause (3). (b) Escorts ...

Devi Dayal Sharma Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 8.8.2002, passed by District Forum-IV, Nand Nagri, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. C-64/1999 - entitled Shri Devi Dayal Sharma v. Oriental Bank of Commerce. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant, Shri Devi Dayal Sharma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant along with his wife Smt. Santosh Kumari was having a joint Savings Bank Account bearing No. 751 with the Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank for the last about 25 years. It was stated in the complaint filed by the appellant that on 17.12.1998, the appellant had deposited a cheque for Rs. 27,491/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Moti Nagar Branch, Delhi with the respondent for being ...

Technova Imaging Systems (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT404TriDel

1. The appellants M/s. Tech-nova Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Mumbai filed a Bill of Entry dated 8-1-96 for the clearance of one Panther Pro-46 Image Setting System. The accompanying invoice dated 29-12-95 was issued by M/s. Prepress Systems, Division of Prepress Solutions, Inc., II, Mount Pleasant Ave., East Hanover, N.J., U.S.A. The value of the goods in the invoice was declared as US$ 33,541/- FOB for the machine and US$ 10,200/- FOB separately for the Application Software for Image Setting comprising of RIP and Escor II Screening". Thus the total value of the invoice was declared at US$ 43,741/- FOB. The importers were issued a show cause notice dated 26-2-96 by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, ACU, New Delhi in which it was averred that another importer had filed a Bill of Entry dated 6-1-96 and cleared the two sets of the same goods at the declared value of US$ 58,890/- FOB per unit; that in that case Application Software for Image Setting comprising of RIP and Escor II screening...

Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT329TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 26-9-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants filed claim for the refund of the service tax paid by them of Rs. 1,66,352/-. They based their claim for the refund on the basis of Apex Court judgment in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. U.O.I dated 27-7-1999 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C)] vide which the provisions of Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) of Service Tax Rules were quashed. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants have failed to produce any evidence to prove that the burden of service tax has not been passed on to the customers, by them, by following the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.).3. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeals of the appellants by holding the same as infructuous in view of Secti...

Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC188

1. All the above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 23.1.2001 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand against the Appellants No. 1, M/s.Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd., along with the penalty and also imposed penalties on the order appellants of various amounts as detailed in the order itself.2. M/s. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafterreferred to as 'HPL ) is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Yarn (non-textured) of different deniers and grades. The company during the period April 1994 to June 1995 clandestinely manufactured and cleared 3,82,962 kgs. of Polyester Yarn of different deniers and grades to M/s. Emmtex Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. While during the period January 1995 to June 1995, the company clandestinely cleared these very goods valued at Rs. 41,33,070 to M/s. Globe Synthetics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'GSL'), Appellant No. 2, without the cover of invoices and without paying Central Excise duty in respe...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 101(2002)DLT141

K.S. Gupta, J.1. Respondent-Objector filed objections (I.A. 1273/98)under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (forshort 'the Act') against the award dated 7th August 1995which are being contested by filing reply by thepetitioner-claimant.2. Although award dated 7th August 1995 has been challenged on diverse grounds but during the course of arguments Sh. M. Dutta for respondent pressed only the ground about award being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It was pointed out that as is evident from covering letter dated 19th May 1997 forwarding therewith the award dated 7th August 1995 by the arbitrator to the Registrar of this court, the award was sent to court at the request dated 2nd April 1997 made by Union of India (ITB Police). Relying on the decision in Govt. of Kerala and Anr. v. V.J. Chacko 1995(2) A. L.R. 50; Seth and Associates v. Steel Authority of India 1998(2) RAJ 528 (Cal) and Patel Motibhai Naranbhai and Anr. v. Dinubhai Motibhai Patel and Ors. , ...

Good View Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT269

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 19.4.2001 passed b the Deputy Director (Land Management) of the DDA in respect of the property bearing Municipal No. 1043/D-6, Ward No. 8 in Khasra No. 1151/3 Min., Village Mehrauli, New Delhi.2. The petitioner purchased the property in question in pursuance to the sale deed dated 13.5.1996 and claims that no notice was ever served on him but notices were addressed to one Shri V.P. Bhardwaj, owner/builder. This grievance is specially being made in view of the fact that it was known to the respondent authorities that the property in question was owned by the petitioner. Reference in this behalf is invited to a notice dated 8.2.2001 addressed to Shri Tarun Tahilyani. It may be noted that as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the said Shri Tarun Tahilyani is the direct of the petitioner company.3. The petitioner has also made a grievance against the jurisdic...

Sunil Srivastava Vs. Shri Ashok Kalra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)8; 2003CriLJ1443; 101(2002)DLT245; 2003(66)DRJ390

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent for his prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short the Act) before a court in Delhi. He has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of this criminal complaint.2. Supreme Court in Rajender Prasad v. Bashir and Ors. 2001 III AD(CR)SC 384 after referring to the earlier judgment in Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr. : 1997CriLJ1519 held that the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in special circumstances. In Krishnana and another (supra) the Supreme Court had laid down that the High Court may exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where High Court finds that there had been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may, in its discretion prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice. It is now well settl...

Ecil Rapiscan Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC222

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These two writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. For supply of 39 colour X-Ray Baggage Inspection Systems, a tender was floated by the second respondent herein; pursuant to or in furtherance whereof the petitioners herein submitted their offers. Technical bids were opened on 22nd March 2000 whereas commercial bids in relation to the said tender were opened on 23rd October 2000.3. The petitioner in CWP No. 2944/2001 ECIL Rapiscan Ltd. by a letter dated 30th October 2000 addressed to the second respondent alleged that having regard to the violation of the mandatory terms of M/s Heimann Systems INC, Canada (hereinafter called 'the Canadian company' for short) and Beijing Zhongdun Security Technology Development Co. (hereinafter called 'the Chinese Company' for short), their bids are liable to be cancelled as being disqualified without notice.4. The petitioner in CW...

Sh. Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. Sh. P.K. Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ1122; 100(2002)DLT463; 2003(66)DRJ483

Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This criminal revision is filed against the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.3.2002 whereby he has dismissed an application of the petitioner accused for discharging him in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. As per the allegations made in the complaint the intimation about dishonour of the cheque in question was received by the complainant on 26.4.2000. Thereafter, the notice of demand was sent by him on 4.5.2000 which was received back with the endorsement of the postman that the premises of the addressee were found locked despite repeated attempts. It is also averred that the said notice was received back unserved on 8.6.2000 and thereafter the complainant respondent sent another notice of demand dated 12.6.2000. which was received by the petitioner on 29.6.2000. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the first notice dated 4.5.2000 was received back with the endorsement of t...