Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

S.P. Bhatia Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order 11.5.2001 passed by the District Forum whereby the respondent bank was held guilty for deficiency in service in not paying the exchange rate prevailing on 29.6.1991 on the foreign fixed deposit receipt (FCNR) has not clarified that the exchange rate shall be applicable on the foreign currency deposit of the appellant whereas the respondent bank has converted it into Indian rupees while applying the exchange rate and that too after having held the respondent guilty for not applying the exchange rate prevailing on 29.6.1991 on the amount of foreign currency i.e., FCNR whereas it has applied the exchange rate prevailing on 12.7.1999. 2. However, on the contrary the Counsel for the respondent raised legal objection that the appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and not under Section 15 and in that event the appeal should have been filed before National Commission. ...

Gyan Chand JaIn Vs. Kurlon Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant purchased three coir mattresses from the respondent for the price of Rs. 4,356. Since the mattresss were not usable from either side, he requested the respondent either to refund the amount or remove the defects. Since his grievance was not redressed by the respondent he approached the District Forum but his complaint was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.8.2001 with the advice to the appellant that he should use the mattresses by keeping the foam side up which was a right and proper way and his grievance that the mattresses are not useful from both sides was not justifiable. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. We have closely perused the complaint filed by the appellant before the District Forum, the impugned order as well as the defence version of the respondent and we find that the appellant purchased coir mattresses and not the foam mattresses and, therefore, his grievance was justified that the mattresses purch...

Dr. Jaswant Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. SDE(R)V17/91 dated 15-5-1991 whereby Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposed total penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 for contravention of sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (the said Act) and also ordered confiscation of the recovered foreign exchange of US dollar 1811, DM 1800, Canadian dollar 12, UAE Dirhams 10 and Indian currency of Rs. 1,25,950 under section 63 of the Act. 3. A show-cause notice No. T-4/6-J/90 dated 14-9-1990 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him for indulging in purchase and sale of foreign exchange of US dollar 4,50,000, DM 5,000 and UAE Dhiram 10 which included foreign exchange seized on 12-9-1989 and 15-9-1989 by the Police from a person not being authorized dealer in foreign exchange w...

P. Vidya Sagar Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. AD(RN)/9/HYD./2000, dated 18-2-2000 Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate imposed total penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the appellant being proprietor of M/s. Sagar Industries for failure to repatriate the export proceeds of US $ 4062 under GR No. 703670. 2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 28-6-2005 in Bangalore camp of this Tribunal when the appellant was neither present nor represented. Accordingly hearing of the matter was adjourned till 26-10-2005 and appellant was directed to be served with the notice by dak as well as by affixation under Rule 14(c) of Adjudication Proceeding and Appeal Rules, 2000. When the matter came up for hearing Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA representing the respondent submitted the service report showing that appellant was duly served on 4-10-2005 on his last known address by affixation. The service reports have been taken on record. As the appellant again failed to present or being represented in spite...

Adam Vali Isap Duka Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

R.N. Poddar, Member. - This appeal is directed against the adjudication order No. ADJ/130/DD/SLH/A/2002 dated 10-10-2002 passed by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and Rs. 1,50,000 on the appellant for contravention of provision of section 9(1)(d) of the Act for the reason of receiving total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12,67,000 from/to various persons in India by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India. 2. A Show Cause Notice No. T-4/22/B/91 dated 5-4-1991 was issued to the appellant seeking his show cause why the adjudication proceeding should not be held against him for receiving the total payment of Rs. 27,18,000 from a person resident in India and also making payment totalling to Rs. 12, 67,000 to persons in India by order or on behalf of his friend Shri Mohammed Chhabu of U.K. resident outside...

Binddlas Duplux Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

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 demand of service tax of Rs. 46,44,624/- and penalties.The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 11,61,156/- at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that applicants were providing services of Clearing and Forwarding Agent.They were only working as licensing agent to look after the interest of the suppliers under agreement. That conditions of the Agreement are to purchase the tenders, to attend the proceedings in respect of the tender and to attend connected services till the order is finalised.One of the conditions is that the applicant should also help in getting the inspection, release of despatch clearance and collection of payments, etc. They are getting 5% on the contract value in respect of the supply of the goods and thus, commission is to be received when the contract were awarded to su...

Usha Breco Limited 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. 14,56,639/- and penalties. The applicants are running two ropeways Maa Mansa Devi and Maa Chandi Devi Temple and a composite ticket is being issued to the persons, who want to use these facilities to reach a distance of about 3.75 Kms. which is covered by the taxi or maxi cabs. The applicants were issued combined tickets showing the different rates for their services. The Revenue has confirmed service tax on the amount collected from the passengers which is in respect of the rents of Maxi cabs/taxi on the ground that the applicants are covered under the scope of tour operators.2. The contention of the applicant is that they had already deposited an amount of Rs. 3,64,160/- at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention is that they are not covered under the scope of the tour operators. The contention is that the tour operators under the Section ...

Mashreq Bank Vs. NavIn Khilnani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT172

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. Decree Holder Mashreq Bank psc has filed this execution along with an application under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC seeking permission to execute the judgment dated 13.11.98 and decree order dated 23.11.98 passed by the Queen's Bench Division of High Court of United Kingdom in case No. 1997 M. No. 1548.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this execution application are that Decree Holder Bank had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of pound 5470212 along with interest thereon against the Judgment Debtor. The amount claimed was due to the Bank from Munradtech Industrial Generators Limited (for short 'MIG') of which the Judgment Debtor/ objector was a Director and had executed a guarantee dated 4.2.1993 ensuring the payment of the Bank dues. The suit was filed under the provisions of O. 14 RSC which prescribed a summary procedure in such matters. It appears from the judgment dated 13.11.98 of which a duly authenticated copy has been placed on the record that the defendan...

Hari Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT17; 2006(2)SLJ311(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Arguments on the Objection pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court had been heard on 29th October, 2004 Counsel for the respondent have raised this very question today.2. It is not in dispute that at the material time the petitioner was posted at Mumbai. The First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged in Bombay; the petitioner has been Charge-sheeted in Mumbai and the Trial was in progress in that city until Interim Orders were passed by this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner now stands transferred to Delhi and his premises were raided in Delhi. This would be irrelevant since the issue before this Court, however, centres around the validity of the sanction of the Central Government for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned Order was passed in New Delhi this Court possessed territori...

Alstom Vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corp.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT274; 2006(87)DRJ47

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein referred to as the said Act). The petitioner/applicant seeks the appointment of an arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate the differences and disputes between the parties in terms of clause 27 of the general conditions of contract. The said clause 27 contains the arbitration clause and the entire procedure for arbitration and it would be material to reproduce the same for disposal of this application:27. ARBITRATION27.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the purchaser and the Contractor, arising out of the Contract for the performance of the works whether during the progress of the works or after its completion or whether before or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first place, be referred to and settled by the Engineer, who, within a period of thirty (30) days after be...