Delhi Court October 2005 Judgments

Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT45; 2005(85)DRJ183

R.C. Jain, J.1. The vexed question as to what can be said to be the act(s) touching the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society /multi-State cooperative society under various State Co-operative Societies Acts and Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act which has received the consideration of the Apex Court and various High Courts in several decisions is once again required to be considered in the present case which on account of the peculiarity of the facts of the present case has assumed greater importance because this time two multi-State co-operative societies e.g. defendant No. 2 (IFFCO) and the plaintiff (KRIBHCO) are pitched in a legal battle against each other.2. A somewhat detailed background of the case which led to the filing of the present suit is necessary at the outset. Both, the plaintiff (KRIBHCO) and defendant No. 2 (IFFCO) are the Multi-State Cooperative Societies under the provisions of Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and were governe...

Smithkline Beecham Plc and anr. Vs. Mr. S. Venkataiah and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT200; 2005(31)PTC666(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By an order dated 23.03.2005 this court had directed issuance of summons to the defendants. By order dated 08.07.2005, the defendants 1 and 2, not having appeared despite service of summons, were ordered to be proceeded with ex parte. By order dated 08.08.2005, the defendant No.3 also being absent despite service was directed to be proceeded with ex parte. In this manner, all the defendants 1 to 3 have been proceeded with ex parte. The plaintiff was directed to file his evidence through his affidavit and also to file his documents within four weeks. The plaintiff did so.2. The plaintiff No.1 is a company organized and existing under the laws of U.K. and the plaintiff No.2 is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff No.2 is a hundred percent subsidiary company of the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs are well-known manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. The plaintiffs have proprietory rights in respect of the manufacture and sale of, inte...

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Raj Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC746; 2006ACJ1025; AIR2006Delhi75; 125(2005)DLT120; (2006)142PLR33

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 30th September, 2005. The facts in detail have been mentioned in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence it is not necessary for us to repeat the same except where necessary. 3. There is no dispute that one Vikas Gupta who was driving a scooter on 20.4.2003 at about 9 p.m. drove over a manhole which was three inches below the regular surface of the road and met with an accident. In para 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that there was no caution/sign board put at the site. Vikas Gupta received fatal injuries as a result of the accid ent. His right eye was crushed. There was bleeding from ear and nose. The flesh of his face scattered on the grill of the road divider. His teeth, blood and flesh scattered on the road. Due to the said injuries, Shri Vikas Gupta died on the spot. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the counter...

Vijay Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT72

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayers in this writ petition, inter alia, are for the release of withheld payment of concession of an allegedly 'undisputed' amount of Rs. 3,82,13,900/- and disputed amount of Rs. 1,02,97,800/- to the Petitioner, together with interest and costs. These amounts are principally in the nature of a subsidy which is granted for the sale and supply of fertilizer. In 1999 the Government of India had set up an Enquiry and directed the Central Investigating Department, U.P. to submit its Report in this context. It was found that the Petitioner's Unit had been closed in 1999; and the land, building, plant, machinery and other assets were sold in that year itself. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior counsel for the Petition r, that the Respondents Officers verified and approved the sale and distribution of fertilizer manufactured by the Petitioner. However, at the present juncture, the procurement and purchase of raw material, viz. mainly roc...

NaraIn Das R. Israni Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR455(Delhi); 126(2006)DLT10; 2005(85)DRJ476

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of MIG Houses in various sectors in Rohini and an Agreement was entered into bearing No. 2/RPD-IV/DDA/84-85. The work was completed on 04.02.1986 with the delay of about 51/2 months. There were disputes between the parties about the claims of the petitioner and the petitioner invoked Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties being the arbitration clause. In terms of the invocation, the Engineer Member, DDA under the cover of the letter dated 23.08.1991 appointed Shri S.C. Kapoor, Chief Engineer (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made and published the Award on 30.12.1999.2. The respondent DDA filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to all the claims awarded.3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on the objections claim-wise and it would be appropriate to consider the same accordingly. It may be noticed that in respect of a large number of claims,...

The Central Bank of India Vs. Shri Rane Parkash and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT537; 2005(85)DRJ557; (2006)143PLR44

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Here is yet another case where a tenant on the grounds untenable, is trying to avoid its liability to pay full rent due for the premises let. The tenant is the Central Bank of India. The landlords are Shri Rane Parkash, Shri Rajiv Prakash and Smt. Shan Parkash.2. It so happened that on December 30, 1998, a registered 'Rent Deed' was executed between the parties. With a view to remove any ambiguity and to delineate the premises actually let, a site plan was attached which formed an integral part of the 'Rent Deed'. As per the terms of the 'Rent Deed' the premises let were known as 'Japan Hall' and 'Gujarat Hall'. Admittedly, the monthly rent was agreed to be Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. Since as per the landlords the Bank was in arrears of rent they filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 34,98,130.00 claiming the same to be due. The suit was instituted under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Bank was sent summons of the same. Upon service of summons the Bank...

industrial Army Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 4,84,861/- for the period 16-10-98 to 31-10-2001. The contention is that the applicants are proving security services to the Govt. officers and Public-sector organization and they are unable to collect from the clients the service tax. Hence, they are unable to deposit the Service Tax. The applicants are not disputed that they are covered under the scope of security services and liable to Service Tax under the Finance Act. As the applicants are providing security service which is not disputed by the appellant, therefore, I find no reason to waive the pre-deposit of the service tax. The applicants had not pleaded any financial hardship. They have pleaded only that Govts. is advertising in the newspapers that service tax has to be paid by the consumer who is receiving the services. But I find that the Rule also provides that the person who is providing the service is liable to colle...

Shri Dalip Kumar Jaiswal Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides, the appellant tiled this appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed b Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.11.98 silk yarn of Chinese was recovered from the van by the police and the appellant, was in the van at the time of interception. Thereafter van with Chinese silk yarn was handed over to the Customs authorities and on investigation, present appellant disclosed that the part of his residential premises was given on rent to Shri Girish Sharma and Anil Sarawgi and six bags of Chinese silk was also found in the premises of the appellant which was as per appellant given on rent. The silk recovered from the van and premises of the appellant was seized on the reasonable belief that it is smuggled into India. After issuing a SCN the adjudicating authority confiscated the seized Chinese silk and.imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. The appellant is only challenging the imposition of penalty. The contention of the appellant i...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Magnet and Electronics (India)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this Appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the respondent was allowed after relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Metro Tyres .2. The contention of the revenue is that mere on the ground that invoice price remains same when the higher duty has been paid, is not to be taken conclusive proof that the appellant had not passed on the burden of duty. Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Mumbai v. Allied photographics India Ltd. .3. The contention of the respondent is that in fact the price when the appellant had paid duty at a higher rate is less than the price prior to the period. The respondent submitted that as per Chartered Accountant Certificate produced by the appellant before the lower authorities also .shows that the appellant had not collected the excise duty paid by them for their customers.4. in this case the appellants are a trader and ma...

Daffodils International (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in- appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby demand of Rs.206551/- was confirmed.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant made export of certain Leather Jackets and part consignment was re-imported to remove some defects and re-import was made under Notification 158/95-Cus dt.14.11.95 and as per the provisions of Notification, the goods re-imported into India are to be re-exported within six months or such extended period not exceeding the further period of six months as Commissioner of Customs may extend. The appellant asked for extension of the period for re-export and Commissioner allowed extension for one year. There is a delay of exporting the goods of four months beyond the period which was allowed by the Commissioner of Customs. A SCN was issued asking for Customs Duty on the goods on the ground that as the re-export was made after one year, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay duty...