Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Atul Limited Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)459; 2003(2)ARBLR489(Delhi); 2003(68)DRJ430; 2003(2)RAJ409; [2003]46SCL73(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Two questions fall for determination in this petition. The first whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in circumstances where admittedly the parties are before an Arbitral Tribunal which possess powers to pass similar orders under Section 17 of the said Act. The second is whether a Receiver can be appointed in respect of leased properties which are presently in the possession of a company which has invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. 2. Counsel for the Respondent has relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Arun Kapur Vs . Vikram Kapur & Ors., : AIR2002Delhi420 . In paragraph 56 of that decision the learned Judge has opined that ' if the party invokes preliminary alternative remedy before the Arbitral Tribunal, it is debarred from invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the Act. Ordinarily if the Arbitrator is seized of...

Usha Alloys and Steels Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR306(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT988; 2003(69)DRJ564; 2003(2)RAJ579

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. In response to an invitation of the respondent/ Union of India for tender, the petitioner submitted tender which was accepted by the respondents by their advance acceptance of tender which was followed by a formal A/T bearing No. MW-5/201/584/10-12-79/45/CAGD/369 dated 15.10.80 for supply of 1250 metric tonnes of CTD bars size 8mm @ 4,550/- per M/T. However, during the performance of the contract, disputes and differences arose between the parties due to risk purchase claim of the respondents alleged to be made in October, 1981. It is alleged that no arbitrator was appointed by the respondents for a period of three years. The first arbitrator was appointed on 29.11.1984. There was a spate of resignations by the arbitrators one after the other. Lastly, one Sh. Ram Bahadur who was the sixth arbitrator took over the proceedings on 13.11.1992. He too resigned in the midstream and resigned and in his place one Mr. K. D. Singh was appointed as arbitrator. Bad omen did not ...

Chandresh Singh (Ex.-ct) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ435

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner complains of violation of the order dated 26th November, 2002 passed in CWP No. 6703/2002. The order reads as under :-'Petitioner, a constable in CRPF, was dismissed from service by impugned order dated 22.12,2000, He has admittedly taken an appeal on 23.2.2002 which is still pending and yet he has filed this petition which is premature at this stage. Realizing this, his counsel wanted to withdraw this, if direction could issue to Appellate Authority to dispose of his Appeal.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the Appellant Authority concerned to dispose of petitioner's appeal within one monthfrom receipt of this order. Should petition feel aggrieved of any adverse orders passed against him thereafter, it shall be open to him to take appropriate remedy under law in the matter. dusty.'2. The respondents were apprised of the order and no steps were taken for disposal of the appeal. The respondents have violated the order and are to be pu...

Enkay (India) Rubber Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)527; [2003]263ITR521(Delhi)

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, expenditure of Rs. 1,00,917 and Rs. 52,940 incurred on the education of Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Manish Jain was allowable as business expenditure under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and he further submitted that the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the Assessing Officer have omitted to consider the relevant facts and have taken into consideration irrelevant material. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The matter pertaining to the year 1992-93 has been dealt with by us and we have disposed of the same vide an order today itself in I.T.A. No. 93 of 2003. The Tribunal has disposed of both the matters by a common judgment. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, we have found that no question of law arises.2. In the instant case, learned counsel pointed out that the persons have joined the company and, thereforee, the assessed ought to have been gr...

Enkay (India) Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)526; [2003]263ITR521A(Delhi)

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order made by the Tribunal, dt. 8th April, 2002, the copy of which is placed as Annexure A-l.2. The grievance made by the appellant is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 35,360 which were incurred on the education of Shri Manish Jain, who was a 'trainee' was allowable as business expenditure. According to the appellant, this is a question of law which is required to be considered. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal on appreciation of the matter placed before it has rendered the decision for the asst. yr. 1992-93. So far as Manish Jain in concerned, he was not in employment of the company. He was a relative of a director. assessed's reply was not found acceptable by the authority concerned. It has also been pointed out by the assessing authority that on hypothetical situation, benefit cannot be granted and, thereforee, it is disallowed. The Tribunal, on appreciation of material facts, c...

Shivani Synthetics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(186)ELT21(Del)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. An order dated 21 January 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act), directing petitioner No.1 herein, viz., Shivani Synthetics Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lacs within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order as a pre-condition for entertainment of the four appeals filed by the present petitioners, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the background facts, giving rise to the petition are: The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Yarn. The officers of the Directorate General of Anti Evasion visited the office of the said petitioner and one M/s.Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd., petitioner No.2 herein, and seized bill discounting documents . The said bills of discounting were allegedly in the name of one M/s.Globe Synthetics Ltd and petitioner No.1. It was alleged that petitioner No.1 ha...

Bal Ram (Shri) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT930

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the name of three petitioners, namely, S/S. Bal Ram, Dewan Singh and Gian Ram all sons of late Shri Har Chand. It was filed through Smt. Sumita Rai claiming herself to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder and a copy of the said GPA dated 5.2.1990 was enclosed as annexure to the writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, Gian Ram, one of the petitioners, filed CM 12454/2003 for dismissal of the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question belonged to him as well as his two brothers and Smt. Sumita Rai was never authorised to file any such petition. Reference was made to certain proceedings pending between the parties in Suit No. 1486/89 which was filed in this Court and has since been transferred to District Court. It was also stated in the application that one of the petitioners, namely, Bal Ram passed away on 27.5.1994 and on his death alleged GPA stood revoked by operation of law.2. Whe...

Enkay (India) Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN35(Delhi)

ORDERLearned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, expenditure of Rs. 1,00,917 and Rs. 52,940 incurred on the education of Sh. Pankaj Jain and Sh. Manish Jain was allowable as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act and he further submitted that the orders of the Appellate Tribunal and the assessing officer have omitted to consider the relevant facts and have taken into consideration irrelevant material. The matter pertains to assessment year 1993-94. The matter pertaining to the year 1992-93 has been dealt with by us and we have disposed of the same vide an order today itself in ITA No. 93/2003. The Tribunal has disposed of both the matters by the common judgment. In respect of the assessment year 1992-93, we have found that no question of law arises.2. In the instant case, learned counsel pointed out that the persons have joined the company and, thereforee, the assessed ought to have been granted the ben...

Diamart India Ltd. Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These appeals have arisen from adjudication order dated 18-12-2001 of the Special Director whereby M/s Diamart India Ltd. and its two partners have been held guilty for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA, 1973. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs has been imposed on the firm and Rs. 5 lakhs each on the two partners. 2. The charge against the appellant was that during the year 1996-97 M/s Diamart India Ltd. exported diamonds to the overseas buyers at Antwerp, Hongkong and Thailand and failed to realise the export proceeds to the tune of US $ 5,36,879.76 in respect of 10 GR forms which was mentioned in annexure A of SCN. SCN was issued on the strength of information received from Vysya Bank Ltd., Overseas Branch, Mumbai that certain export bills of the company were pending for realisation beyond the period of six months from the date of its shipment. Shri Sanjey Parekh was examined and stated that out of 13 GR export proceeds, the export proceed in respect of 4 GRs were realised...

Ram Naresh Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT89TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-appeal, dated 2-7-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner regarding confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act as and applicable to Central Excise Rules and imposition of penalty of Rs. 8,000/- on each of the appellants under Rule 209A.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 8-12-1995, the Central Excise Officers seized M.S. Bars from the truck No. UHF-9844 at the business premises of the appellants, M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jitendra Kumar. Shri Ram Naresh, appellant, was the driver of that truck which was owned by Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla, appellant. The truck was also seized as the driver of the truck could not produce any document regarding lawful removal of the goods by the manufacturer, M/s. Vishwakarma Steels & Allied Indus, for delivery at the premises of the buyer, namely, M/s.Rakesh Kumar Jitendra Kumar. On completi...