Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Wee Aar Constructive Builders and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi140; 2004(3)ARBLR291(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT578

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing its objections.2. The claims of the claimant and amounts awarded by the Arbitrator, broadly speaking, are as follows :(1) Claimant claimed Rs. 3,24,925 on account of shifting charges and wastage of material from the disputed land. Under this head the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 2,44,831.(2) Under Claim No. 2 the claimant had claimed Rs. 1,83,480 on account of difference in rates of coarse sand. The said claim was disallowed by the Arbitrator.(3) Claim No. 3 was a claim of Rs. 45,78,617 on account of damages sustained by the claimants due to alleged various breaches by the Department and intimated to the appellant from time to time, i.e. from 4th April, 1984. The Arbitrator after discussing in detail, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,53,643 to be paid to the claimant by the appellant.(4) Claim No. 4 was the claim for Rs. 4,85,209 on account of difference ...

R.K. Chaudhary and Sons Vs. Mcd and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT677

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator. It is not in dispute that clause 25 of the agreement provides for arbitration and the respondent while not denying this has quoted the following paragraph relevant according to it for determination of the issues raised in this petition.'it is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the Engineer-in-Charge that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the MCD shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims.'2. It is submitted by the respondent MCD that the claim for appointment of an arbitrator not having been made within 120 days of the final bill being rece...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR548(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.1991. Pursuant to disputes, which arose between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, matter was referred to the sole Arbitration of Shri O.P. Mittal, respondent No. 2 herein, a retired Chief Engineer of CPWD. The Arbitrator gave his Award on 18.05.1988. The claims were filed by the respondent No. 1 Briefly narrating the claims are, Claim No. 1 is a claim for a sum of Rs. 12 lacs outstanding against the final bill; Claim No. 2 is for reimbursement of Rs. 3,50,000 due as a result of increase in price of bricks ; Claim No. 3 is a claim for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on account of difference in actual and theoretical weight of steel; Claim No. 4 is a claim for Rs. 90,000 deducted by the appellant towards rebate, which was rejected by the Arbitrator; Claim No. 5 is for Rs. 30 lacs on account of increase in market rates for material and labour after the stipulated date of...

G.L. Textiles Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR321(Delhi)

R.C. Jain, J.1. Pursuant to a reference made by this Court under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, the sole arbitrator Mr. Ram Bahadur, Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs entered upon the reference in relation to disputes arising out of a contract A/T No. TWL-3/101/62/657/3-3-76/PAOD/147/511/RP/1238/PAOD, dated 19.02.1982 and has made and published his award dated 30.10.1995. The arbitrator filed the said award in this Court along with the proceedings and notice was issued to the parties inviting objections, if any. The petitioner-contractor filed the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act for setting aside the award of the sole arbitrator on a variety of grounds listed in the petition. A reply has been filed to the objections on behalf of the respondent denying that there are any ground(s) much less sufficient grounds for setting aside the award of the sole arbitrator. On the pleadin...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chandra Chibber

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 7.8.2003 is that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum amounting to Rs. 20,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant inasmuch as the telephone of the respondent remained non-functional from 4.4.2001 to 14.4.2001 and from 16.5.2001 to 17.5.2001 and rebate of Rs. 209/- was granted in lieu thereof. On the face of it, the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent for mental agony and harassment appears to be on the higher side as the aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to compensate the consumer adequately for mental agony and harassment and not to enrich the consumer unjustly. In view of the finding of the District forum about the telephone having remained non-functional for the period from 4.4.2001 to 16.6.2001 and also from 4.4.2001 to 13.4.2001 for which the appellant has already granted reasonable rebate, we deem the compensation o...

Pall Pharmalab Filteration Pvt. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(118)LC372Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Pall Pharmalab Filteration Pvt. Ltd. is whether running royalty on the contract products and whether the amount paid towards technical documentation are to be added in the assessable value under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.2. Shri A. Madhavrao, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants is a joint venture company of M/s. Pall Corporation, USA, M/s. Filtech Pharmalab Pvt. Ltd. and certain individual promoters; that they are engaged inter-alia, in import of parts of filtration equipment and other filtration products from Pall Europe and Pall Gelman; that they entered into a Licence and Technical Know-how agreement with Pall Corpn. USA for the manufacture of filters and filtration and separation system; that they had also entered into an agreement with Pall Europe to act as their distributor in India as per the Export Price List for resale in India; that as ...

Polyglass Acrylic Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT194TriDel

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of goods and declared the same as Acrylic sheet scrap. The value of the goods were declared at the rate of US $ 140 PMT. On examination, it was found that the goods imported by the appellants were Acrylic sheet off cuts instead of sheet scrap. On the basis of this the value of the goods were enhanced to US $ 450 PMT.4. The contention of the appellants is that the value was enhanced without any evidence on record. The contention is that they had declared the goods as mentioned in the invoice as Acrylic sheet scrap and the Revenue is treating the same as Acrylic off cuts. The contention is that the goods are Acrylic sheet scrap and there is no ground to enhance the value declared by the appellant.5. The contention of the Revenue is that as the appellant has misdeclared the goods, as the goods were not sheet scrap tha...

Eon Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT474TriDel

1. M/s. EON Polymers and their Managing Director and Director have filed these 3 appeals being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No.41/2003, dated 15-7-2003 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on all of them besides confiscating the goods.2. Shri M. Chandershekharan, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that the Appellant company is having a 100% E.O.U. as well as unit in the Domestic Tariff Area (D.T.A.) manufacturing PET bottles/jars/performs; that after the visit of the Central Excise Officers of their factory on 20-9-1998 a show cause notice dated 17-3-1999 was issued to them with a proposal to recover various amounts of Customs duty on capital goods and a proposal to confiscate the imported goods and imposition of penalty under Section 114A and Section 112 of the Customs Act besides proposing recovery of Central Excise duty, confiscation of indigenous goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules...

Rochees Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT254TriDel

1. The above captioned two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-original vide which Customs duty as well as Central Excise duty with penalty has been confirmed against the company, appellant No. 1 and penalty has also been imposed on its Managing Director, appellant No. 2 as detailed therein.2.1 The company, appellant No. 1 is a 100% Export-Oriented Unit located at Jaipur and engaged in the manufacture of Wrist Watches by assembling the parts of the watches essentially imported as per letter of permission issued by the Development Commissioner NEPZ, Noida. They have also got licence for private bonded warehouse issued under Section 58 of the Customs Act. The factory premises of the company were visited by the officers - firstly on 18-9-2003 and at that time, the officers observed that the goods stored in the storeroom were not as per the details given in the import documents and the goods were also stored in the locally procured plain cartons ...

N. Ramanjaneyulu and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT471TriDel

1. The following issue was referred to the Larger Bench for consideration in view of the conflicting views expressed by different Benches of the Tribunal on the issue involved :- "Whether hessian bags and sacking bags made out of jute fabrics and hessian and sacking fabrics on which duty of cess had been paid, would further be liable to cess under Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983 read with the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1984." 2. The appellants submitted written submissions and prayed for deciding the issue on merits. They submitted that they purchased Hessian cloth on which Jute Cess has already been paid at the appropriate rate and stitched the Hessian cloth on three sides to make jute bags. Cess on jute is not a Multiple Tax and, therefore, they need not pay any cess once again on the bags made by them from Hessian cloth. In the case of composite mills, where the process of manufacturing the Hessian cloth and sacks is continuous, Cess is being paid only once when the sacks are f...