Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

R.S. Rawat, Havaldar Clerk Vs. the D.D.G., Defense Security Corps and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT349

ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE' for improperly keeping a woman in his quarter being a widower an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. (i). Action on two more cases of indiscipline is also pending due to his Hospital Admission. (d) Individual holding the post of Hav Clk of 83 DSCP1 since 26th April 2001. But in the past 309 days, he has physically served only for 126 days. The rest of the period has been spent in Hospital, leave or sick leave. As per records held, this had been his trend in the past unit also where he could not even complete the mandatory period for initiation of ACR. The trend is likely to continue in future also. Hence the individual is apparently more or less a liability to the unit as well the Organization.'' 7. The aforesaid reasons for not recommending is also annexed as Annexure-R-1 to the counter affidavit. It was also brought to our notice that petitioner's wife Smt. Hema Rawat had died on 11.9.2001 due to consumption of poison and not becaus...

Shri A.S. Rana, Proprietor, Rana Construction Co. Vs. DIn Coop. Group ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR287(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT769

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2. The parties entered into a Contract dated 25th February, 1996 for construction of 166 Dwelling Units at Plot No.7, Sector 4, Phase 1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. The petitioner is the contractor of M/s Rana Construction Company. Clause 22 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 22. ARBITRATION:(A) If any dispute arises and persists between the contractor and society the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the President, Din Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., whose award shall be final and binding on both parties. The arbitrator shall submit his award within six months of his entering on the reference. This period may be extended by the arbitrator with the consent of both the parties.(B) Only that Court within whose jurisdiction the ...

Talvinder Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005ACJ584; [2005]127CompCas239(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ680; (2004)138PLR36

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The refusal of respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, to renew the Medical Claim Insurance Policy of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions as in the past has given rise to the present petition.2. The petitioner took a Medical Claim Insurance Policy with respondent No. 2 in the year 1997 and the policy was renewed from year to year till 2002. There is only one claim made in the year 1998 which had been paid. The last renewal of the policy expired on 28.12.2002 and it is the contention of the petitioner that the Development Officer of respondent No. 2, Mr. Trilochan Singh, who used to take the renewal premium every year, failed to turn up to take payment of the premium. The petitioner on 21.02 2003 then personally went to the office of respondent No. 2 and applied for Medical Claim Insurance Policy. However, though the policy was issued, there was an exclusion clause provided for Cardiac Arrest Disease and related diseases. Thus, the trea...

Ex. Sgt. P.S. Chauhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT351; 2004(76)DRJ675

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents in not extending the service of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with the relevant rules, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Airman in the year 1980. Thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in the year 1990. He also appeared and passed the J.W.O. Promotion examination in the year 1993.3. The aforesaid enrolment of the petitioner in the IAF was for an initial term of 20 years as per the provisions of AFI 12/S/48 (as amended), which lays down the terms and conditions of the services of the Airmen. Subsequently, the aforesaid AFI 12/S/48 came to be amended. Under the aforesaid amended provision, it was laid down that on completion of 20 years regular service, the competent authority at his discretion may extend the period of regular service for another period of six years at the first instance and subsequently for another period...

Surjeet Singh Vs. Devinder Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR147(Delhi); 113(2004)DLT687

ORDERR.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of an Presiding Arbitrator. It is alleged in the petition that disputes/differences arose between the parties in relation to agreement dated 5.11.1999 and Mr. Ranjit Singh Khalsa and Mr. Mahinder Mohan Singh were appointed as Arbitrators and an arbitral Tribunal was constituted. However, the arbitral proceedings could not be commenced for want of an Presiding Arbitrator, One of the Arbitrator Mr. Mahinder Singh Khalsa made several requests to his counterpart Mr. Ranjit Singh Khalsa for agreeing for the appointment of a third/ Presiding Arbitrator. However, there was no response from his side and so this petition.2. The respondent Mr. Devinder Singh was served with the notice and has filed reply raising preliminary objections about the alleged arbitration agreement being a fake and forged as also denying that there subsists any disputes between the parties which...

Everest Electric Works Vs. Himachal Futuristics Communications Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]129CompCas100(Delhi); 2004(3)ArbLR82

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question to be answered at this juncture is whether a party is precluded and barred from filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Act') after having prayed for and obtained several adjournments in the suit for the purposes of filing a written statement.2. The ubiquitous view of the High Court appears to be that even in circumstances where adjournments have been repeatedly granted for the purpose of filing a written statement the rights of a party who is privy to an arbitration clause, are not ousted or alienated by such conduct. In Vijay Anand and Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashraf and Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2001] VII AD (Delhi) 862 a learned single judge of this Court had highlighted the distinction in the language between Section 8 of the 1996 Act and the erstwhile Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in arriving at the conclusion that the party seeking to enforce the arbitration clause ...

Devinder Malhotra Vs. Standard Chartered Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. These are two cross appeals preferred against the single order dated 17.5.2003 passed by District Forum. One is filed by the appellant Standard Chartered Bank and the other is filed by Mr. Devinder Malhotra, Director of M/s. Core Sector Information Systems Ltd. and are being disposed of by this single order. 2. The facts given in these appeals are more or less not in dispute. The appellant company M/s. Core Sector Information Systems Ltd. was holding a Current Account at Vasant Vihar Branch of Standard Chartered Bank. At the time of opening of the account, the Bank was instructed that account would be operated jointly by three directors. Written instructions were also issued to the Bank. During the course of transactions of their business M/s. Core Sector Information Systems Ltd. deposited six cheques bearing signature of either one of the directors or two of them and not all the three directors. The amounts of the cheques were transferred to the personal acc...

Timex Watches Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC45

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the controversy centres round the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to take abatement of 35% from MRP, while arriving at the price of the goods excluding sales tax and other taxes for payment of 8% of the amount under Rules 57CC and 57-AD(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, or not. The lower authorities have disallowed this abatement and confirmed the differential demand of Rs. 16,30,197/- with penalty of Rs. 1 lakh against the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Wrist watches. They availed the Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of those watches, the retail price of which was Rs. 500/-per piece during the period March, 2000 to February, 2001 and cleared those watches without payment of duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000. For having not maintained the sep...

Cce Vs. Trishul Research Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC335

1. In this Appeal which has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the assessment of the goods under Section 4A instead of Section 4, which were cleared by the respondents during the period July to Feb., 2001 involving differential duty of Rs. 61,671.3. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of various varieties of soaps, as detailed in the show cause notice, they effected clearance of their goods to different hotels at contractual price during the period in dispute and claimed abatement @ 35% on MRP under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act.4. They were served with a show cause notice for not paying the differential duty as the provisions of Section 4A of the Act were not attracted to their case. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against the respondents by applying the provisions of Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of payment of duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has reversed that order and give...

Eicher Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC656Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tractors. Its entire production is sold to its holding company. The dispute raised in these appeals is in regard to Central Excise Valuation of the tractors. The impugned orders have held that the sale price to the holding company should be rejected (being sale to a related party) and the sale price of the holding Company to unrelated parties taken as the assessable value. The orders have relied on the third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and definition of 'related person' in Section 4(4)(c) in passing the orders. Order-in-original No. 3/AC/V/P1 dated 28.10.80 states as under: 4.1. I have gone through the records of the case. The definition of "related person" has been given in Sub-section 4(c) of Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, which is reproduced below: Related person" means a person who is so associated with the assessce that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of eac...