Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments

Shivani Plastic Co. Vs. Dvb

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)523; 107(2003)DLT784

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in RCA No. 97/1999 whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 11th March, 2002, has reversed the order of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and restraining the DVB from disconnecting the electricity supply to the plaintiff on the basis of the inspection report dated 7th April, 1994 and show cause notice dated 22nd February, 1994.-2- RSA 55/20022. The brief facts of the case as noted by the the Additional District Judge are as follows :' The plaintiff/respondent is a Proprietorship firm and Shri Chhagan Lal Tiwari, who is the proprietor had obtained two electricity connections being (1) No. 125230-IP and (2) No. 125229-IL installed at F-16, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Nangloi, New Delhi and had been working on the MCD license and paying all the bills regularily. The plaintiff/respondent alleged that the inspection was carried out on 7-1-94 arbi...

Vijay Vishwanath Talwar Vs. Mashreq Bank, Psc and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR399(Delhi); 109(2004)DLT838; 2004(74)DRJ323

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J. 1. In this application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only), the main question raised before the Court is as to whether in the face of Section 16 of the Act, this Court can embark upon or not an inquiry into the existence or validity of an Arbitration Agreement between the parties.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 2nd July, 2003, between him and defendant No. 1, which contains an Arbitration Clause, is void ab initio and honest. Besides declaration, the plaintiff claims damages also from all the three defendants and a permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 to restrain it from presenting the post-dated cheques for encashment. He also claims mandatory injunction commanding defendant No. 1 to return the post-dated cheques to the plain...

M.C.D. Vs. Delhi Nagar Nigam Work, Karamchari Sangh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)136PLR60; 2004(3)SLJ393(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The conduct of the case by the petitioner before the Labour Court shows continued indifference to the fate of the case in the Labour Court because in spite of several opportunities given including the imposition of costs it chose to remain absent leading to exparte proceedings. Even thereafter the Award dated 20th October, 2001 is sought to be challenged in this Court belatedly by filing a writ petition on 14th October, 2003 about 2 years later.2. The Explanationn given for the delay is as follows;-'The Management received the copy of the award with the legal opinion, on 6.8,2002. After receiving the copy of the award the management immediately collected all the documents and forwarded the file to the higher up authorities for the approval to challenge the award. The petitioner Corporation being a Government Department and there are hundreds of cases and each case has to pass through various channels before approval and hence there has been delay in coming before thi...

D.T.C. Vs. Devinder Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ704

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 27th August, 2002 directing the reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favor the petitioner. In the impugned award the Labour Court noted that the premature retirement of the respondent No. 1/workman was not under Clause 10 of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 which reads as follows:-'a) In case it is certified that the employee has become permanently disabled and is unfit to discharge duty of the post held by him and refuses to accept the post offered to him in view of the aforesaid Resolution No. 23.b) In case the employee is not able to recover completely within maximum period of 18 months as stipulated above and is medically unfit at the expiry of the said period of 18 months for the post held by him.'2. The Tribunal has found by the impugned award as follows:-'In the present case, the workman was holding the post of conductor and he was...

Allahabad Bank Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ1114Del

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated May 5, 2000 directing the payment of functional allowance to the workman, Shri Krishan Pal for the period, starting from May 22, 1990 to June 21, 1991 including the payment of special allowance for the month of May, 1991 to June, 1991.4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has no objection to the setting aside of the Award dated May 5, 2000, subject to the payment of the costs.5. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and the passage of time and the fact that the reference is pending since 1995, the award dated May 5, 2000 and Orders March 10, 1998, April 5, 2000 and May 2, 2000 are set aside subject to the payment of the costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/- payable to the respondent No. 2.6. Parties are directed to appear before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi on December ...

Ordnance Factory Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC49

1. The appeal filed by Ordnance Depot is restored to its original number after recalling our Final Order No. 243/03-B dated 24.3.2003 as the Committee on disputes has allowed the Appellants to pursue their appeal before the Tribunal in its meeting held on 29.5.2003.2. Shri U.S. Bhatt, learned Advocate, submitted that Ordnance Factory, a unit of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, manufacture arms and ammunition and parts thereof which are exclusively meant for defence purpose and are exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 62/95-CE dated 16.3.1995; that during the manufacture of arms & ammunition some scrap of brass, iron & steel is generated; that usable scrap is sent to job workers like India Smelting and Refining Company and Rastriya Metal Industries for conversion into strips which are subsequently used by the Appellants for the manufacture of cup for ammunition meant for defence purpose only; that for conversion of scrap into strip on job work they availe...

Cce Vs. Trimurti Metal Industries, Vipin

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These are 5 appeals, filed by Revenue, against common Order-in-Appeals No. 156-160/2003 dated 29.4.2003 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication Order demanding duty and imposing Penalty on Appellants No. 1 to 4 and has set aside the Penalty imposed on Appellant No. 5.2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that all the Appellants purchased stainless steel flats on payment of duty which are cut into small pieces and then hot rolled in the form of patta/patties; that the circles were used captively for the manufacture of utensils as well as were being sold in the open market; that in respect of circles used captively for the manufacture of utensils as well as were being sold in the open market; that in respect of circles used captively for the manufacture of utensils the cold rolled patta/patties are chargeable to duty @ 15% ad valorem. He, further, submitted that that the demands are not time barred as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of fi...

Jaideep Glass Works Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyester viscose yarn. On 18.12.97 the officers of the Revenue Department visited the factory premises of the appellants and on verification in was found that certain finished goods were short against the recorded balance in RG-1 register. Some packing material was also found short. Certain goods were found in excess over the recorded balance. The appellants paid duty in respect of the goods found short. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods found in excess and imposed penalty.4. The contention of the appellants is that the goods which were found in excess in the factory are to liable for confiscation. The appellants relied upon the decision in the case of Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. v.CCE, Raipur, 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the finished goods which are not ent...

Daksh Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC349Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are manufacturers of mild steel ingots etc. They discharged their Central Excise duty liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme (Section 3A of the Central Excise Act). This Scheme levies duty based on the capacity of production. The impugned order has determined the capacity of the furnace of the appellant as 3.5 M.T. and annual capacity at 11488 M.T. while the appellant had declared the capacity of the furnace at 3 M.T.2. The contention in the present appeal is that the authority should have gone by the declaration of the assessee that the furnace capacity was 3 M.Ts. It has been pointed out that the original capacity of 4 M.T. has been reduced to 3 M.T. and this position remains confirmed by invoice No. 507 dated 11.2.1999 of Industofur Engineers INC. During the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that in terms of the Departmental instructions the authorities have to go by the capacity as indicated in the invoice for the machinery a...

Gujarat Cup Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC221

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Gujarat Cup Company, the issue involved is whether the benefit of exemption Notification is applicable to the cups manufactured by them.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants. One Shri Laxmi Vishwanath, on behalf of Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate has sent a fax requesting for adjournment on the ground that Shri Jitender Singh is pre-occupied at Chennai for arguing some matter in the High Court. We observe that this matter is being adjourned on the request of the Appellants since November, 2002 and most of the time Shri Jitendera Singh has not even appeared before the Tribunal as some one else was seeking adjournment on his behalf. We, therefore, take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, and perusing the records.3. It has been submitted by the Appellants in their memorandum of appeal that they manufacture printed and unprinted paper cups for holding ice-cream which are classifiable ...