Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

In Re: Jvg Leasing (Securities and Finance) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas780(Delhi); (2006)2CompLJ242(Del); [2007]79SCL541(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Reserve Bank of India (in short the 'RBI') filed three winding up petitions against JVG Leasing Ltd. (CP No. 266/98), JVG Securities Ltd. (CP No. 267/98) and JVG Finance Ltd. (CP No. 265/98) seeking winding up of these companies under the provisions of Section 45MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (in short the 'RBI Act') read with Section 433 of the Companies Act. All the three companies (hereafter referred to as the 'Companies') were classified as Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFC). As these companies were accepting fixed deposits and other borrowings from banks, corporate institutions and the public, in the year 1997 the Reserve Bank of India Act was amended, first by issuing Reserve Bank of India (Amendment Ordinance), 1997 which was replaced by Reserve Bank (Amendment) Act 1997 and Section 45-IA was introduced as per which, it became obligatory on the part of such NBFCs to obtain necessary license from the RBI in order to carry out/continue their non-banki...

Sampangi Ram Vs. N.C.T of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT573; 2006(86)DRJ111

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. Complainant Bhagat Ram and accused Sampangi Ram are present in person. They have been identified by their learned counsel. Parties are identified by the I.O.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for quashing FIR 57/2005, PS Rajinder Nagar, under Sections 406/420/120-B of Indian Penal Code.3. I have heard Mr. K.K.Tyagi learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission as also gone through the documents placed on the file.4. One Bhagat Ram Sharma had sent a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police informing that accused persons had cheated him for a total sum of Rs. 6 lacs after giving him assurances that they would get his son admitted in Medical College at Bangalore. Admission could not be obtained and on repeated protests of Bhagat Ram only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was returned. On this complaint an FIR was registered under Sections 406-420/120-B IPC.5. It is stated in the petition that the matter has be...

Kurup Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ548

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed against an order of the learned single Judge, who was designated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').2. It has been held by a 7 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.B.P. and Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. : AIR2006SC450 , that an order under Section 11(6) of the Act appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator is a judicial order and not an administrative order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to para 46(x) of the majority decision which states:-Since all were guided by the decision of this Court in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 8 SCC 159 and orders under Section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on the position adopted in that decision, we clarify that appointments of arbitrators or arbitral tribunals thus far made, are to be trea...

R.K. Razdan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. It is rightly said that misfortune never comes alone. It brings host of miseries in its train. 2. Appellant is a Kashmiri migrant. He like thousands became refugee in their own land as they fled in the wake of militancy that killed hundreds of people, ransacked their houses and took away their belongings. Not only he became homeless but all his belongings were taken away by the miscreants and militants and when he filed an insurance claim with the respondent, it was repudiated in view of the report of the Surveyor that since one door of house was lying open while some other doors were found locked there was no evidence that theft had taken place. 3. To his ill-luck his complaint seeking indemnification of the loss was dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.12.1995 on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the loss of articles by not filing the documents, police report, etc. 4. Before us the appellant has produced certain...

Jcb India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. M/s. JCB India Ltd. the appellants manufacture excavator loaders of different models in Haryana. They filed 18 Bills of Entry for import of various components inter alia including column switches as part of excavator loaders. They claimed the classification of column switches under Customs Tariff Heading 8536.50 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/02-Cus., dt. 1-3-2002 as amended at S. No. 331 for concessional rate of duty. However, the Bills of Entry were finalized by the lower authorities who classified the column switches under CTH 8431.49.90 as parts of excavators and not as independent articles under CTH 8536 on the ground that the item imported has multiple functions than simply establishing electrical contacts. Further the column switches were found not only to operate the electrical system of excavator but also had the function of a gear. The appellants contention before Commissioner (Appeals) that the item falls under 8536.50 did not result in an order in favour...

Anand Tissues Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 3,89,510/- and penalty. The demand of Service Tax was confirmed on the ground that the applicant is engaged in providing the Service of Clearing and Forwarding Agent.3. The contention of the applicant is that he is not covered the scope of Clearing and Forwarding Agent under the definition as defined under Section 65 of Finance Act. The contention is that he is only arranged meeting between M/s. Broadcast Equipment (India) Ltd. and supplier of the goods i.e. M/s. Dragon Capital (Hong Kong) Ltd. He has not dealt with the goods nor he received the goods or warehoused the goods, therefore, the demand of Service Tax is not sustainable. The applicant also pointed out that he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 97,427/- at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Ram Shree Steels Pvt. Ltd. to submit t...

Surgeon Rear Admiral P. Sivadas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT558; 2005(85)DRJ620

Mukul Mudgal J.1. This writ petition challenges the order of the Director General Armed Forces Medical Services (hereinafter referred to as the DGAFMS) dated 7th May, 2005 by which the rank of the petitioner was decreased from 6 to 7 in the merit list drawn for the promotion to the rank of Lt. General and equivalent, because of one additional mark awarded to the respondent No. 4, Major General H.K. Maini for the purposes of promotion to the rank equivalent to that of a Lt. General. The petitioner, a Doctor by profession, joined the defense Services (Navy) in its Medical Corps. During his tenure, he earned regular promotions up to the rank of a Rear Admiral/equivalent to Major General in the Army and Air Vice Marshal in the Air Force on 1st January, 2003. The petitioner was at the relevant time holding the post of Rear Admiral in the Indian Navy.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-(a) The petitioner whose rank is that of Surgeon Rear Admiral, along with 14 others was considered...

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Arunodya

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]286ITR383(Delhi)

The assessing officer denied the benefit of section 11 to the assessed on the ground that the assessed had violated the provisions of sections 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax the assessed appears to have alternatively claimed benefit under section 10(22A) of the Act which too was rejected by the Commissioner. In a further appeal before the Tribunal the assessed was allowed to urge the additional claim for benefit under section 10(22-A) of the Act in exercise of the Tribunal's power under rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal has eventually remitted the matter back to the assessing officer with the direction that the claim made by the assessed for benefit under the said provisions may be examined and fresh orders passed after giving to the assessed an opportunity of being heard. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the said order.We have heard Mr. Jolly, counsel for the revenue, a...

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi169; 2006(1)ARBLR16(Delhi); 2006(1)CTLJ239(Del)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, formerly NJPC Ltd, had engaged M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Limited-applicants for completion of a part of civil work for raising head tunnel Stn. 1642m to Stn. 2729m including shaft to its on-going project of hydro-electric project in terms of contract No. 2.2 dated 26th May, 1993. Under the terms of this contract, the applicants had to furnish one performance and 17 retention money guarantees under clause 10 and clause 60 of the general conditions of contract. The said bank guarantees relating to performance and retention money respectively were required to be returned to the petitioners after 12 months from the date of substantial completion of works. These bank guarantees were furnished by the applicants and were accepted by the respondent at the relevant time. It is the case of the applicants that, during the currency of the contract under various interim payment certificates or final and binding decisions of the Di...

Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Pushpa Jaggi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi156; 2005(2)CTLJ431(Del); 128(2006)DLT96

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi, owner of plot numbers 58, 59, 68A and 60B, measuring about 850 sq. yds. forming part of khasra No. 2/19, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kakrola in the abadi known as Nidhi Vihar, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi entered into an agreement to sell dated 4th March, 2005 in favor of the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was paid as earnest money (bayana) and the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to the seller on or before 25th June, 2005, upon execution and registration of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff or his nominee in terms of the said agreement. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the said agreement, the plaintiff had approached Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi for taking actual measurement of the land as the same was postulated under the terms of the agreement. He required the said person to be present on site for such measurement. Unfortunately, Sh. Goverdhan Lal Jaggi died o...