Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Globe Hi-fabs Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]124CompCas91(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT205; 2004(76)DRJ170; (2004)138PLR22

R.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (in short BHEL) has filed this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for setting aside the award dated 5.8.1998 made and published by the sole arbitrator Shri S. Krishnan. 2. The relevant facts leading to the present application, in brief, are that the BHEL was awarded a contract on turnkey basis for setting up of 2 Units of 210 MW by Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited (TVNL), an Undertaking of State Government of Bihar for setting up of Tenughat Power Plant on cost plus basis. Out of the main contract, the BHEL awarded a contract for structural steel works for Unit-I and Unit-II of the power plant to the respondent Globe Hi-Fabs Limited (in short GHF) at a lump sum price of Rs. 8,64,13,027.25 on 12.1.1989. GHF submitted final bill for the Unit-II work on 01.11.1994 for Rs. 26.28 lacs but the BHEL wanted to make deduction of Rs. 5.71 lacs on acco...

Shri Uttam Kumar Bose Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ197

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of F.I.R. No. 117/2004 registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi, under Section 420 of the I.P.C. Crl. M. No. 2130/2004 was filed for stay of investigations. 2. Crl. M. Nos. 2615 and 2616/2004 have been filed by respondent No. 2 for dismissing the writ petition and vacating stay order. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition and applications, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is the Chief Controller of Sahara Airlines Limited. The respondent No. 2-complainant, who is a Commercial Pilot, was working with Indian Airlines from 1972 to 1994 and from 1994 to 1995 with Jet Airways. In September, 1995, he was selected for the post of Commander by Sahara Airlines Limited. On 30th September, 1995, he was issued an appointment letter, one of the terms of which was that on Completion of three years service in Sahara India Airlines, the Management would provid...

Jai Singh H.C. No. 814500406, Cisf Unit Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT173

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The only issue that arises for our consideration in these writ petitions is whether while fixing the pay of the re-employed persons, enhanced portion of the military pension is to be ignored or not. Our attention has been invited to a decision of this court delivered placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. G. Vasudevan Pillai and Ors. reported in JT (1991) CSIF 417. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court , it has been held that the respondent could not deduct the military pension in the absence of any terms and conditions stipulated at the time of re-employment. It was also held that the decision to reduce the enhanced pension from pay of those ex-serviceman only, who were holding civil posts on 1.1.88 following the re-employment is unconstitutional. The Division Bench of this court in H.C./G.D. Riazul Hag v. UOI and Ors. in CWP 224/96 decided on 13.2.1997 has also taken a similar view that the respondent ca...

Mohinder Puri and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT341

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Punjab and Sind Bank and Reserve Bank of India respectively, to consider the case of the petitioners under revised Guidelines dated 29.1.2003 for compromise settlement of chronic Non-Performing Assets (for short, 'NDAs') of public sector banks.2. The petitioners have tried to set out long pending disputes and litigations between the parties as a background to filing of the present petition. It is really not necessary to go into detail of the same and it would suffice to say that petitioner No. 1 had handed over title deeds of various properties on 1.3.1975 to respondent No. 2 bank to secure the loan facilities. There is dispute to the extent of what the petitioner claims as non-denial of requisite facilities. There is, however, no dispute that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was appropriated by respondent No. 2 bank as margin money for the bank guarantee of Rs. 19.25 lakhs issued by the said bank in ...

Radhika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT837; 2004(76)DRJ636

Mukul Mudgal, J.1 The facts of the case are briefly stated as under:-The petitioner, M/s Radhika Automobiles Limited was a dealer of automobiles manufactured by the respondent No. 1, Maruti Udyog Limited(in short the `MUL'). The petitioner had been appointed as a dealer by MUL for sale, service and repair of the vehicles manufactured by MUL for Gwalior region and Bareilly in the year 1986. The respondent No. 2 is State Bank of India, a nationalized bank, which extends credit facilities and bank guarantees to the petitioner. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at B-38 Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The petitioner's case is that it had invested crores of rupees in setting up the showrooms and workshop situated at Agra-Bombay Road at Gwalior and Maharajpura as per the specifications made in Maruti Corporate Identity Manual. The petitioner had recruited and trained 70 personnel in its office, show rooms and workshops as per the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Develo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]274ITR35(Delhi)

1. This is a matter between the two departments of the State/Union or Department of Government and a public sector undertaking. The apex court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT : [2004]267ITR647(SC) , pointed out as under :'Undoubtedly, the right to enforce a right in a court of law cannot be effaced. However, it must be remembered that courts are overburdened with a large number of cases. The majority of such cases pertain to Government Departments and/or public sector undertakings. As is stated in Chief Conservator of Forests' case : [2003]2SCR180 it was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Code that two departments of a State or Union of India and/or a department of the Government and a public sector undertaking fight a litigation in a court of law. Such a course is detrimental to public interest as it entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. These are all limbs of the Government and must act in co-ordination and not...

Cit Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN493(Delhi)

ORDERThis is a matter between the two departments of the State/Union or Department of Government and a public sector undertaking, The Apex Court in MTNL v. CBDT : [2004]267ITR647(SC) , pointed out as under:'Undoubtedly, the right to enforce a right in a court of law cannot be effaced. However, it must be remembered that courts are overburdened with a large number of cases. The majority of such cases pertain to government departments and/or public sector undertakings. As is stated in Chief Conservator of Forest's case : [2003]2SCR180 it was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Code that two departments of a State or Union of India and/or a department of the Government and a public sector undertaking fight a litigation in a court of law. Such a course is detrimental to public interest as it entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. These are all limbs of the government and must act in co-ordination and not confrontation. The mechanism set u...

L.i.C. of India Vs. Bhola Choudhary

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant Insurance Company insures people against life. The respondents wife had insured for life for Rs. 50,000/- on 28.9.2000 for period of 20 years. While issuing the policy the appellant undertook to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- with accrued bonuses on insureds death. However, the assured, who was wife of the respondent died on 21.8.2001 on account of vomiting, diarrhoea and high fever before she could be taken to hospital. Death certificate was obtained by the respondent and the appellant was informed accordingly with the requisite documents. The respondent was asked to give a Heart Declaration executed by some responsible person other than the deceaseds husband and repudiated the claim. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed the instant complaint which was allowed vide order dated 23.1.2002 directing the appellant to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12%. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing the impugned order on the ...

Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC274

2. The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of Modvat credit was denied to the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tubes. Prior to 1.3.94 the steel tubes were exempted from payment of duty, therefore, the appellants were paying duty on the intermediate product i.e. C.R. Strip. On 1.3.94 the exemption granted to the steel tubes was withdrawn and the steel tubes were liable to duty. The appellants filed a declaration vide letter dated 8.3.94 under Rule 57H of Central Excise Rules for taking credit in respect of the duty paid inputs used in the steel tubes which are lying in stock. The show-cause notice was issued on 18.8.94 on the ground that the credit was taken without prior permission of the Assistant Collector. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal. On appeal filed by the appellant the Tri...

Associated Switch Gears and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC364Tri(Delhi)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LT/HT Panel, Bus Duct and parts thereof. The appellant filed classification list in respect of Bus Ducts manufactured by them claiming the classification under Heading No.8538.00 the tariff. The classification list was approved and appellants were paying duty as per the classification list and RT-12 returns were also assessed under the approved classification. On 6.12.1993 the Board issued a circular clarifying that the Bus Ducts are classifiable under Heading No. 8544.00 the tariff. The rate of duty under Heading 8544.00 was 35%, whereas the appellants were paying duty under Heading 8538.00 at the rate of 20%. The Supdt. of Central Excise issued a letter asking for differential duty for the period 1.4.1993 to 28.2.1994 on 18.1.1999. The appellants paid differential duty on 21.1.1999 under protest and challenged the letter issued by the Supdt. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 2.8.1999 s...