Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

S.S. Subair Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT705

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether, and if so, the situations in which an order of preventive detention can be assailed before the same is executed and the person concerned taken in preventive detention. The question is no longer rest integra having been answered authoritatively by the Supreme Court in Additional Secretary to Govt. of India and Ors. V/s Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr. ( : 1991(53)ELT481(SC) . Dealing with the question whether the power of judicial review could be exercised to test the validity of orders of the preventive detention even before the same are executed, the court held that if detention orders are challenged and the operation thereof stayed before they are executed in every case, the very purpose of the order and the law under which the same is issued will be frustrated. Having said so, the court dispelled the impression that the power of judicial review did not extend to examining the validity of an ...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. B.L. Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ722

B.A. Khan, J.1. This petition challenges Tribunal order dated 9.1.2003 allowing respondent's OA No. 297/2002 and directing petitioners to grant them the benefit of their uninterrupted ad hoc service on the post of Junior Analyst from 30.6.1994, when they were appointed to the post in the second spell, for all purposes including seniority, pensionary benefits, fixation of pay and promotion and to deem them regularised on this post from this date with consequential benefits.2. These respondents were appointed to the post of Technical Assistant with Staff Inspection Unit (SIU) of petitioner No. 1 in April 1989. They were appointed as Junior Analyst on ad hoc basis initially for six months or till regular candidates would become available, whichever was earlier by order dated 6.2.1991. This order also stipulated that their appointment would not confer any right on them to count their period of ad hoc appointment towards their seniority in the grade of Junior Analyst and would not fix their...

Om Prakash Baldev Krishan Engineers Contractors (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ86(Del)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The respondent herein had filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the appellants hereinbefore the Company Law Board (for short 'the CLB') alleging oppression and mismanagement. By the impugned order dated 22 August 2003, two directions which are given are not palatable to the appellants and, thereforee, they have filed this appeal. These directions are:(a) The appellant No. 1 company (hereinafter called as 'the company') shall transmit 1,000 equity shares in favor of the respondent. It may be mentioned that father of the respondent (late) Shri Om Prakash was holding 1,000 shares and after his death, the respondent applied for transmission of these shares in the name of the executor of the Will. The shares were not transmitted purportedly on the ground that the application for transfer of these shares was not proper and validly submitted.(b) The company had issued rights share to the existing ...

Madhya Pradesh Iron and Steel Company Vs. Sikands Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT394; [2005]64SCL162(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. This is a petition seeking winding up of the respondent company filed by the petitioner who claims itself to be a creditor of the respondent company and also contends that the respondent company is unable to pay the debts. The petition is filed under the provisions of Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The basis for the aforesaid plea of being creditor of the respondent company and the circumstances under which it is alleged that the respondent company is unable to pay the debts, may first be noted in brief.2.According to the petitioner, the respondent company (hereinafter called as `the company') approached the petitioner from time to time with the request to supply the Steel Wire Rods according to the required specifications and agreed rates, which were supplied to the company in due course of business. Although details of the invoices/bills vide which these supplies were made are allegedly given in Annexur...

Vanita Gambhir and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR166(Delhi)

B.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioners' applications under Sections 11 and 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 have been dismissed for being barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act by impugned order dated 2.9.2002 passed in Suit No. 65/2002 giving rise to this petition.2. Petitioners had filed these applications before learned Additional District Judge for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 and for appointment of receiver under Section 9 of the Act as a temporary interim measure. Their case was that private respondents 2 to 6 had inducted them in partnership vide Partnership Deed dated 30.9.2000 pursuant whereto they had contributed their share capital but these respondents had then in breach of the terms of Partnership prevented them from having any excess to books/registers of partnership firm, had issued cheques without obtaining their signatures, had failed to maintain any statement of accounts and had deprived them from the profits and so on. The disputes had thu...

Ashoka Auto and General Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inder Mohan Puri and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]124CompCas422(Delhi); [2005]62SCL19(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The official liquidator has filed this application under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, with the prayer that the respondents who are ex-directors of M/s. Ashoka Auto and General industries (P.) Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') be directed to pay the official liquidator a sum of Rs. 13,86,346.30 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum from the date of winding up.2. The application discloses that after the passing of the winding up orders against the company and appointment of the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator with effect from November 4, 1980 and as the liquidator with effect from May 20, 1981, when final winding up orders were passed, the respondents herein failed to file the statement of affairs which was filed only on July 17, 1986. On going through the statement it was noted by the official liquidator that there were certain trade debtors and certain other debtors to whom company had g...

Kic Food Products Ltd. Vs. R.S. Bhullar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant vide impugned order dated 8.9.1998 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1442/1998, entitled Shri R.S. Bhullar v. KIC Food Products Ltd. was directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 892-57 p. charged from the respondent for the food articles and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 500/- towards the cost of litigation for mental and physical harassment on account of deficiency in service inasmuch as the respondent who was the Chief Manager, Human Resources with Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Faridabad was not only kept on waiting for long as the meals were not served in time by the staff of the appellant and the food served also caused poisoning to the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts, in brief are as under : The respondent went to the appellants restaurant for dinner along with his friend at 7.38 p.m. on 18.5.1998. After takin...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alps Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT354TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 (Sri. No. 166), and benefit of Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 (Sri. No.171) is available to the vertical blinds manufactured by M/s. Alps Industries Ltd. We hared Shri H.C. Verma, learned D.R. for the Revenue and Shri Lajja Ram, learned Advocate for the Respondents.2. Both the Notification Nos. 6/2000 and 3/2001 provides nil rate of duty in respect of made-up textile articles made out of handloom fabrics falling under Chapter 63 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the vertical blinds manufactured by the Respondents fall under Heading No. 63.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. The contention of the Revenue is that the vertical blinds are not made out of handloom fabrics and these are made out of the processed fabrics; that the handloom fabrics before being used to manufacture vertical blinds is passe...

Delton Cable Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT301TriDel

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Delton Cables Ltd. is whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Central Excise duty claimed by them.2. Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture wires and cables for the Department of Telecommunication; that the price for supply of wires and cables is a composite price i.e.inclusive of all levies, taxes, freight, insurance, packing and forwarding etc. that while discharging the duty liability they, through oversight did not exclude the cost of transportation from transaction value; that as a result of which they had paid excess excise duty to the extent of Rs. 12,61,064/-; that accordingly, they filed the refund claim on 12-9-2001 claiming refund of duty paid in excess; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 61/2002, dated 22-10-2002 has rejected their refund claim holding that the duty is not liable to be refunded to them as the incidence of duty has not b...

Phoenix Lamps India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC221Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in these appeals, filed by M/s. Phoenix Lamps India Ltd., relates to the manner for computing the amount of duty calculated @ 50% of each of the duties of Customs.2. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants have a unit in the Noida Export Processing Zone (NEPZ) for manufacture and export of Halogen and Compact Fluorescent Lamps; that under Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 27.12.1993, the effective rate of excise duty on the goods cleared to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) is equal to the amount calculated @ 50% of each of the duties of Customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act; that the Revenue is of the view that the duty is to be calculated @ 50% of the aggregate of the customs duty; that this issue has now been settled by the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indoworth India Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (63) RLT 473 (CESTAT-LB) : 2004 (115) ECR 376 (T-LB). We also heard Mrs. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR.3. The issue...