Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Pawan Singh and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT420; 2004(75)DRJ739

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. These writ petitions raise an important question of law having far-reaching consequences. The issue arises in relation to the acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely, Prem Nagar Station, which is part of Mass Rapid Transit System (in short 'the MRTS'), a Project undertaken by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short 'the DMRC'). There is no denying the fact that in Delhi land can be acquired by the Government, for public purpose, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the LA Act'). However, the Parliament, way back in the year 1978, also enacted another Legislation, namely, the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Metro Railways Act') and, this Act also contains the provisions for acquisition of land required for specific purpose viz. for the construction of Metro Railways or other works connected therewith. In the present case, land is acquired under the provisions of the LA Act for MR...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jaycee Coach Builders Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT178TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Modvat credit of the amount in question to the respondents. I have heard both the sides.The perusal of the record shows that the adjudicating authority disallowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 5,15,272/- to the respondents and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the invoices did not contain complete particulars such as the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer and also other particulars required under Rule 57GG. The adjudicating authority even held that some of the invoices were inadmissible on the ground that the quantity and duty element shown therein did not tally with the quantity and duty mentioned by the manufacturer. The respondents challenged that order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that it was passed ex parte. They produced certain additional documents before the Commissioner (Appeals). But the Commissioner (Appe...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sumkit Marbles P. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has affirmed the orders-in-original dropping the proceedings against the respondents for recovery of 8% of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the under Rule 57AD.2. I have heard both the sides. The learned SDR has contended that modvat credit could not be legally availed by the respondents on the inputs utilised by them in the manufacture of the exempted goods and as such they are liable to pay 8% of the value of the exempted goods cleared by them during the disputed period in terms of Rule 57CC and 57AD. On the other hand, the learned CA has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. The perusal of the record shows that the respondent were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods at the relevant time (August 2000 to June 2001). They availed modvat credit on the inputs utilised by them in the manuf...

G.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC694

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of twin blade razors on job work basis. The appellants are duty bound to fix the MRP on the razors which are for retail sale. During the period in dispute appellants entered into contract with M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, who are engaged in the manufacture of Cherry Blossom shoe polish, for supply of the razor which were to be supplied free of cost alongwith the pack of cherry blossom shoe polish. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the razors are to be assessed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act or under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.4. The contention of the appellant is that the goods supplied to the manufacture of cherry blossom are not for retail sale and no MRP are mentioned on that. The razor is specifically marked as free with cherry blossom. Therefore, they are liable to pay Central Excise duty as per provi...

Smt. Kalawati, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi351; 111(2004)DLT81; 2004(74)DRJ515

A.K. Sikri, J.1. There is no dispute on facts in all these cases. However, a neat question of law is raised which has some importance as well. The question required to be determined is formulated in the writ petition itself in the following terms:'Whether the respondents can discriminate the land owners/Co-owners in the matter of payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition` in respect of same land of same village acquired under the same notification and same Award.'2. For the sake of convenience, we may note down the facts from W.P.(C) No.1268/86.3. The petitioner in this case was co-sharer/co-owner of agricultural land of half share of Khasra Nos.240/1(1-4), 245/1 (2-17), 246(4-7), 918/247(2-11), 919/248(1-19), 249(2-2), 923/252(0-6), 250(4-13), 253(5-2), 254(2-14), 255(2-14), 924/254(3-16), 927/260(4-1), 928/261(2-11), 931/264(0-6), 933/265(3-5), 935/268(2-13), 936/269(1-13) total measuring 48 bighas 14 bids was situate in the revenue estate of village Chandrawali alias Shahda...

National Building Construction Corporation Limited Vs. Decor India Pvt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR1(Delhi); III(2004)BC139; 111(2004)DLT146; 2004(74)DRJ159

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.By filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the award dated 22nd October, 1999 passed by the sole arbitrator Sh.L.C.Sharma. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the aforesaid arbitrator was appointed by this court by order dated 4th December, 1998 passed in C.P.No.106/1995. In order to appreciate the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, reference is required to be made to some background facts leading to filing of the present petition.2.The petitioner invited tenders for doing interior work at the ground floor of its office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender, the defendant submitted its tender for an estimated cost of the work of Rs.14.64 lacs. The petitioner accepted the tender of the respondent and the work order was issued in favor of the respondent by order dated 1st July, 1989. The respondent completed it...

Mir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT108; 2004(74)DRJ173

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1.The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,800/- per bigha for the land in Class`A' and Rs.900/- per bigha for the land in Class `B' of village `Amberhai'. The appellants in these appeals are admittedly in Class `A' land. The learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 10th March, 1989 enhanced the compensation for the acquired land of village `Amberhai' @ Rs.3,320/- per bigha. 2.The appellants aggrieved by the impugned judgment have preferred these appeals before this Court for further enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the UOI submit that there is no adjudication for the land of village `Amberhai' by this Court. In this view of the matter, we have to get guidance from the cases which have been determined by this Court in respect of the lands of adjoining villages. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the ca...

Hukum Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT95; 2004(77)DRJ559

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short `the Act') against the judgment of the reference court with regard to the land acquired under award No.9/96-97 vide notification under Section 4 dated 14.1.1994 and notification under Section 6 dated 16.12.1994.2. The appellants land located in village Singhola was acquired vide award No.9/96-97 on 14.1.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector (in short 'LAC') fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned LAC filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the learned LAC ignored the fact that the acquired land of the petitioner was fertile and had potential for commercial purposes and it was near G.T. Karnal Road and surrounded by the Narela Township. It was also alleged that LAC did not consider that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs.50 lakhs per acr...

Ram Chander and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ182

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short `the Act') against the judgment of the reference court with regard to the land acquired under award No.1/95-96 vide notification under Section 4 dated 19.3.1993 and notification under Section 6 dated 29.4.1993.2. The appellants' land located in village Singhola was acquired vide award No.1/95-96 on 19.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector (in short 'LAC') fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.96,875/- per bigha. The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the learned LAC filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that the learned LAC did not consider situation and location of the land which was situated near the abadi of the village and touching the G.T. Karnal Road. It was also alleged that LAC did not consider that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was not less than Rs.3,000/- per sq. yard. It was also alleged that the...

Universal Music India Limited Vs. Subodh Garg

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC79; 111(2004)DLT239; 2004(74)DRJ211

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1.By this judgment and order, I propose to dispose of the application, which is filed by the defendant praying for leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff, which is registered as is No.9245/2001. 2.The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying for a decree against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.37,92,927.47p along with pendente lite and future interest and cost. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply and marketing of audio cassettes and CDs. The defendant, who is the proprietor of M/s Shiva Electronics, is engaged in the business of trading and selling the said products and other products. 3.In 1994, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as a dealer of the products manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that subsequent to the said appointment, products of the plaintiff were duly supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant against invoices raised at mutually agreed price and rates. It is ...