Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Arctic India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT478

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order will dispose of objections of the petitioner, Union of India, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, against the award dated 23rd January, 2001 published by the sole Arbitrator, Shri G.S. Mehta, vide letter No. SPA/1720/GSM/107/E8 dated 23rd January, 2005.2. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent being agreement CEDZ-18/93-94 for provision of Central air-conditioning to certain technical/administrative building at Delhi Cant. The amount of the contract was Rs. 1,41,96,000 and the date of commencement was 31st March, 1994. The agreement was accepted on 19th March, 1994. The original date of completion of the work was 30th November, 1994, however, the time was extended and first phase was completed on 27th June, 1995 whereas second phase was completed on 21st September, 1996.3. Under the contract, the respondent had to design, supply and install the air-conditioning plant consisting of various equipments, i....

Educate India Society Vs. All India Council for Technical Education

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT151; 2005(85)DRJ271

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. A copy of the Petition by way of advance notice has been served on the Respondent on 21.8.2005. However, there was no appearance on its behalf when the Petition was listed before Court on 25.10.2005. On that date notice was nevertheless issued to the Respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. The Notice was served on the Respondent through the Registry of this Court on 28.10.2005. Even prior thereto, learned counsel for the Petitioner had, by its letter dated 25.10.2005, informed the Respondent of the next date of hearing, that is, 8.11.2005. This letter was received by the Respondent on 26.10.2005. The matter has been passed over once, in order to afford yet another opportunity to the Respondent to enter appearance and make their representation. Even on the second call the Respondent has failed to put in appearance. It is accordingly set ex parte. Rule.2. In the Writ Petition it has been prayed that a writ, order or direction be issued quashing t...

P.C.S. Kanaujia Vs. Madan Mohan Chitkara

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC443; 124(2005)DLT708

R.C. Jain, J. 1. Through this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 30th September, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi thereby dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate dated 3rd August, 2004. By the said order dated 3rd August, 2004, the learned Magistrate has disposed of two applications, one under Section 227 Cr.P.C and other under Section 340 Cr.P.C.2. This Court having gone through the impugned orders dated 3rd August, 2004 and 30th September, 2004 and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case is of the considered opinion that so far as the dismissal of the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C is concerned, no fault can be found with the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision peti...

Jagpreet Singh Vs. A.P. Singh Intelligence Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT241; 2005(85)DRJ595; 2006(199)ELT205(Del)

R.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated 18.2.2005, sitting as a court of appeal, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against his conviction of sentence.2. The petitioner herein was prosecuted by the DRI for the offence punishable under Section 132/135(1)(a) of the Customs Act (For short the Act) and after trial was convicted for the said offences and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 132 of the Act or in default of payment of fine to undergo one and a half month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner was further sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of one and a half months. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the appellant preferred an appeal but without success, the lea...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Milk Food Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Del)567; 125(2005)DLT419; 2006(86)DRJ784; [2006]280ITR331(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The respondents-assessed is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various milk products like milk powder, ghee etc. During assessment year 1996-97, the respondent appears to have finalised agreements with M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited effective from 1st of April, 1995 for assignment of its trade mark `Milk Food 100% Ice Cream' in favor of the said company. A non-competition agreement in ice cream/frozen desert was also separately entered into between these two companies. In consideration of the two agreements, the assessed company received a sum of Rs. 5 crores for assignment of its trademark and Rs. 8 crores for non-competition in manufacturing, selling and distribution of ice cream. The trade mark was assigned for a period of eight years while non-competition in ice cream was to last for ten years.2. In the course of assessment, the assessed claimed that the amounts received by it from M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited were not exigib...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Raj Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having raised illegal electricity bill on the basis of misuse charges in respect to connection No. LN 1433548, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 22.2.2001, passed by the District Forum directed to remove the misuse charges from the date of its levy and raise a revised bill without any LPSC and after adjusting the payment already made by the respondent, refund the excess amount and if outstanding amount is found due it shall be recovered in five equal monthly instalments. On payment already made by the respondent the District Forum also awarded 12% interest and Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that on inspection of the premises of the electricity meter the connected load of 64.95 was found against the sanctioned load of .25 KV. On the face of it the aforesaid report does not inspire confidence as there was no allegation of t...

Lubricare Relays Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC121

1. The appeals are being taken up in pursuance of the remand order dated 17th March 2005 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that show cause notice dated 22nd Sept.89 was issued to the appellant for clubbing of clearance of all the manufacturing units for the purpose of availing small scale exemption under the provisions of Central Excise duty notification issued from time to time. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalties and the adjudicating authority also confiscated the land, building etc and allow the same to be released on the payment of redemption fine. Appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final order No. 112 to 118/99-B1 dated 9.2.99 dismissed the appeal and upheld the demand and penalties. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 17th March 2005 after taking into consideration the circu...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rishi Electronics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. According to the revenue, two errors apparent on the face of the record arise from Tribunal's Misc. order No. 65/05-NB, dated 28-3-2005 [2005 (186) E.L.T. 201 (Tri. - Del.)]; (1) In directing payment of interest after expiry of three months from 16-11-2000 which is the date of Final order of the Tribunal deciding the issue giving rise to the claim for refund.2. Ld. DR submits that the language of Section 27A makes it clear that interest is payable after the expirty of three months from the date on which application for refund is received and in the case such application came to be filed on 1-1-01 and therefore, interest would become payable from 2-4-01 i.e. after the expiry of three months from 1-1-01. He further submits that interest is to be paid at rates fixed by the Central Govt. and different rates for different periods were fixed as per different notifications rate of interest was 15% as per notification No. 36/2000 dated 12-5-2000 upto 10-5-01, 9% as per Notification No. 21/...

Beltek (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 59,22,182/- and equal amount of penalty and penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on the Director. In this case, VCD/DVD/Multi players are being imported into India and before clearance, the goods at the time of import of the individual unit packages already contained markings such as, name of the commodity, net quantity, month of import, MRP, name of the company marketing the goods as required under the EXIM Policy and also as per the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act. Thereafter, the goods in question were purchased and after purchase, the applicants were putting the sticker bearing the Chassis No. and warranty seal void. The demand was confirmed on the ground that fixing of original stickers on the imported goods amounts to manufacture in terms of provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act.3. The contention of applicant is that at the time of import the goods, brand name of Belte...

National Stock Exchange Member Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas504(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT165; 2005(85)DRJ298; [2006]70SCL151(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2004 in WP(C) No. 5417/2003.2. The facts in detail have been mentioned in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating them here again except where required. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a stock broker has to get a certificate of registration from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') from each of the stock exchanges where he operates, or whether a single certificate of registration from the SEBI is sufficient.3. In this connection, we reproduce Section 12(1) of the Act:-'12(1) No stock broker, sub-broker, share transfer agent, banker to an issue, trustee of trust deed, registrar to an issue, merchant banker, underwriter, portfolio manager, investment adviser and such other intermediar...