Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Vls Finance Ltd. Vs. Sunair Hotels Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC221; [2007]137CompCas434(Delhi); 126(2006)DLT226; 2006(86)DRJ190

Mukul Mudgal, J.1.This appeal under Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the order dated 13th June, 2001 passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as the CLB), Bench at Delhi dismissing the Company Petition No. 45/1998 filed by the appeal VLS Finance Limited under Sections 250, 397 and 398 of the Act. The appeal arises from a dispute in respect of a company called Sunair Hotels Limited (respondent No. 1) which is at the moment running the Metropolitan Nicol Hotel in New Delhi. Sunaero Limited, respondent No. 2 is the wholly owned subsidiary company of respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 3 to 5 are the promoter Directors of respondent No. 1 and respondents 6 to 27 are the shareholders of respondent No. 1 company. The facts of the case as per the appellant briefly stated as follows:-(i) In February, 1977, the respondent No. 1 company was incorporated and the third respondent Mr. S.P. Gupta was the main promoter along with his ...

Gaya Parshad and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT123

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Yet another problem of relocation of jhuggis has been brought before this Court by way of the present petition. Petitioners claim to belong to socially and economically backward classes. They state that they are poor and illiterate. They claim to work as washerman (Dhobi) at Dhobi Ghat No. 15, Clive Road, South Avenue, now known as Tyagraja Marg. Petitioners claim that their ancestors migrated from the territories of Pakistan after partition and built temporary structures for their residence at the site. They claim that NDMC charged license fee from the petitioners and previously from their ancestors, to reside and carry on trade of washerman at the site.2. As per the petitioners, the trade of washerman requires residence and place of work to be at the same site. If separated in residence from the place of work it would be difficult for the washerman to keep round the clock vigil on the clothes given to them by their customers for washing and ironing. They claim...

Mukesh Gupta Vs. Sushma Vasishtha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT217

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.S.A. 75 of 2005 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.5.2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, in R.C.A. No. 76 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge has, while adjudicating upon an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2005 in suit for possession and mesne profits, dismissed the appeal.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the first appellate court, are that -The appellant-defendant was inducted as tenant by the respondent-plaintiff in premises Flat No. 48, Plot No. 20, Triveni Apartments, Budella Residential Scheme, Vikaspuri, Delhi, vide rent agreement dated 28.6.1993, the tenancy was never renewed. The rental of the premises is stated to be Rs. 3,650/- p.m. And the appellant-defendant is in arrears of rent from 1.4.1999 which amounts to Rs. 52,750/- up to 30.6.2000. The tenancy is stated to have been terminated vide notice dated 26.6.2000 and since the appellant-defendant did not vacate the premises, the respondent-plaintiff fil...

India Metals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ430

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of respondents' objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the award dated 22.1.1992 by Sh. S.C. Goel sole arbitrator, ex Chief Materials Manager (S) Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi.2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that the respondents invited tender enquiry No. 211-S/1078/9133 due to open on 17.7.1991. Petitioner submitted his offer on 15.7-2001 at the net rate of Rs. 151.50 each for the supply of 58,100 numbers of M.S. Tie Bars (for BGCI Sleepers) to RDSO Drg. No. T.404(M) ALT-NIL and conforming to the IRS Specification No. T-8. The offer of the petitioner was accepted and a purchase order dated 11.10.1991 was placed on him for supply of above-mentioned stores. The delivery period of the stores was till 7.6.1992 with the delivery clause as 'delivery will commence after 60 days from the receipt of technically and commercially clear purchase orders by the seller and will be supplied at ...

Continental Travel Service Vs. K.C. Gupta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a travel agent and books tickets on behalf of respondent No. 2-M/s Skyline NEPC Ltd. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 10.7.2001 passed by District Forum whereby it along with respondent No. 2 was held guilty jointly and severally for deficiency in service inasmuch as that they did not inform respondent No. 1 about the suspension of flights from Guwahati to Imphal and directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,840, the amount for which tickets were purchased by respondent No. 1 and Rs. 25,000 for mental pain and harassment and Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation. 2. Through this appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that he had not received the amount of the tickets and charged commission of Rs. 500 only he, therefore, cannot be held liable jointly and severally for deficiency in service. 3. The only controversy to be determined was whether due information was conveyed to respondent No. 1 by the appellant with r...

Amrik Singh Sambhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant purchased a Maruti Car manufactured by the respondent in February 1995. Due to some alleged manufacturing defect the car suddenly caught fire and was damaged on 5.6.1996 when it was parked at his premises. The complaint of the appellant seeking compensation from the respondent on account of having firstly sold a car with manufacturing defect and secondly falsely representing it to a model of 1995 whereas it was a model of 1995 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.4.2003. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. So far as allegation of having sold a car of 1994 model being the car of 1995 the fact remains that the car was booked in the year 1995 and respondent No. 1 had delivered the car to its dealer M/s. Pasco Automobiles on 1.12.1994 and therefore the respondent No. 1 cannot be accused of having played fraud upon the appellant. 4. As regards the allegations that the car caught fire when it was parked which was due to s...

Hindustan Cables Ltd. Vs. C.C.E

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(198)ELT527TriDel

1. Vide impugned order Commissioner of Central Excise has rejected the appellant's prayer of remission of duty in respect of the goods destroyed by fire and has confirmed the Central Excise duty of Rs. 45.18 lakhs in respect of the said damaged goods and has also imposed personal penalty of identical amount under the provisions of Section 11AC read with Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. There is no dispute on the fact that the fire broke into the appellant's factory on 17.3.2002 and the same was reported to the Revenue on 18.3.2002. Heavy loss of excisable goods that is manufactured electric cables along with drums occurred in the said fire. The appellant claimed remission of duty in respect of such damaged goods on the ground that the loss was on account of natural cause and un-avoided reasons. However, the Commissioner has referred to the report of Chief Fire Officer stating that the fire spread on account of casual approach of factory for storage of O.F.C. in the...

Viswanadha Institute of Tech. of Vs. Commr. of Cus., Icd

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant is an Engineering College and availed exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. in regard to LCD Projector. The exemption was availed of based on eligibility certificate issued by Jawahar Lal Nehru University. Subsequently, eligibility certificate was cancelled.The present proceedings are based on such cancellation of the certificate. The Customs authorities, in addition to demanding duty, have also confiscated the. LCD projector.2. The submission is that at the time of clearance of the goods, the appellant had produced a valid certificate, that satisfied the requirement under the notification and exemption once correctly availed cannot be revoked subsequently on the ground of cancellation of the certificate, 3. Prima facie we find merit in the appellant's contention. The exemption was availed of based on a proper certificate. The cancellation of the certificate is not on the ground that the certificate was obtained by fraud from the certificate issuing authority. F...

Cce Vs. Modern Steels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC161

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue on the ground that the respondent had imported metal scrap through Kandla port and they filed Bill of Entry Page 0163 for clearance of the same on 12.1.96 and paid the duty on 20.1.96. The respondent received different quantities of the goods assessed under the Bill of Entry No. 378 dated 12.1.96 on 21.8.96 & 7.11.96. It was alleged by the Department that since the credit was taken after expiry period of six months from the date of Bill of Entry, the credit was not legal in view of Rule 57G(5) of Central Excise Rules, 1994 at the relevant time. The case was adjudicated by the Dy. Commissioner, who disallowed the credit of Rs. 92,131.97 to the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) however reversed the order of the original authority and allowed the credit on the ground that the contention of the appellant; is that the imported scrap had been cleared by the Customs authorities in piece-meals in view of the procedure laid down by this Customs a...

Vimal Kumar Dhall Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Vipul Raheja, Ld. Advocate appeared for hearing. He stated that although the Vakalatnama is in the name of Shri S.S. Bhangoo and Shri K.K. Anand but he is working in their company. He will submit Vakalatnama in his own name within a weeks time and pleaded that he may be heard as the other two Advocates in whose name Vakalatnama has been filed are not available.2. In the stay application, the Director of M/s. Osho Forge Pvt. Ltd., the applicant is seeking stay of the recovery of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on him. It was pleaded that the company has already deposited the entire amount of duty and the penalty amount has been waived on the company. Therefore, the penalty on Shri Vimal Kumar Dhall may also be waived.3. It was pointed out on behalf of the Revenue, that the penalty on the company was dropped by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Machine Montell (I) Ltd. .However, the role of the present applicant is very clear and specific that h...