Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Ocs Friends Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Nbcc Ltd. and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT38

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA 13278/2000 (Under/section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The respondent has filed objections to the award of the sole arbitrator Sh. W.D. Dandage dated 20.03.2000. The award is a non speaking and it is not disputed that there was no requirement to give a speaking award. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the last date of hearing had confined his submissions to the aspect that the arbitrator had gone beyond the reference made to him since claim filed by the petitioner was beyond the scope of the what had been referred to in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') in respect of which the reference arose. On a perusal of the claim petition filed by the petitioner and the petition under Section 20 of the said Act, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner had made enhanced claims. Nature of the claims was more or less the same but...

Wipra Finance Ltd. Vs. Srg Infotech (India ) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR502(Delhi); [2007]137CompCas274(Delhi); 2005(85)DRJ530

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These three applications under Sections 7, 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') are filed by the applicant for appointment of an arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes, differences, claims and questions which have arisen between the parties. All the applications involve same question of law, to be decided under similar set of facts for sake of convenience, facts of Arb. P. No. 162/99 are noted.2. The applicant is a non-banking financial company. In the year 1995 it agreed to grant lease finance for purchase of certain equipments to the respondent No. 1, which is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The lease agreement dated 29th March 1995 was entered into between the parties. Certain equipments, details whereof are given in para 7(d) were purchased and leased out to the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, who is Chairman of respondent No. 1-company stood guarantee for repayment of the amoun...

Smt. Mamta Devi and ors. Vs. Bses and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)ACC425; 2006ACJ1257; 126(2006)DLT663

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. First petitioner, Mamta Devi is the wife of late Harish Chandra Jha. Second to fourth petitioners are the minor sons and daughters of late Harish Chandra Jha. Fifth petitioner is the mother of late Harish Chandra Jha. First respondent is BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, the successor in interest of Delhi vidyut Board. Second respondent was functioning as the site in charge at sub-station (33 KVA, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi) and was an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board when the unfortunate incident took place in which Harish Chandra Jha died. Third respondent is the proprietor of the fourth respondent. It is pleaded that Harish Chandra Jha was employed by respondent No. 3. Fifth respondent is M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd., the stated manufacturer of the panel which was being installed in the sub-station when the unfortunate incident took place.2. Late Shri Harish Chandra Jha died on 15.7.99 when, during repair work, an explosion took place at the Bhikaji Cama Place, Sub...

The Himalaya Drug Company Vs. Sumit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT23; 2006(32)PTC112(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff, the Himalaya Drug Company, a partnership firm, has instituted this suit through Mr Ravi Tikku, the Regional Manager of the plaintiff for Delhi and who is also the duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff under a power of attorney being Exhibit P2. The suit has been instituted for permanent injunction, restraining infringment of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts etc. The reliefs claimed in the suit are as under:(i) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its partners or proprietors as the case may be, its principal officers, servants and agents and all other acting for and on its behalf from reproducing communicating to the public, adapting, using or infringing in any other manner, the plaintiff's copyright in the herbal database as well as each herbal write up/description that comprises the herbal database, as described more fully in the plaint;(ii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, it...

Residents' Welfare Association (a Registered Society) through Its Secr ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT369

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal (as well as the connected appeal LPA 888/2004 both under Clause X of the Letters Patent) is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th August, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) 682/1989 and WP (C) 3137/1987.2. This appeal has been filed by the Residents' Welfare Association of DDA flats in Pocket BG of Paschim Vihar, while the connected appeal has been filed by one of the residents of the same pocket and a member of the Appellant association.3. The grievance of the Appellants is that 288 flats in Pocket BG Paschim Vihar were constructed by the DDA under one scheme and at the same time but 162 of these flats, which were allotted to the Appellants, were 12% costlier than the 126 flats earlier allotted to others. The Appellants challenged this cost differentiation in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.4. The specific details in this regard are that the draw of lots for 126 flats took place on 12th June, 1985 and...

Chandra Jyoti Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant took an insurance policy from the respondent known as Office Protection Shield and was thus insured for all the risks on account of theft, damage, etc. On account of loss of Rs. 1,55,700 by way of theft and burglary including the cash of Rs. 63,000 the District Forum vide impugned order dated 12th April, 2003 directed the respondent only to indemnify the loss of Rs. 22,000 along with interest @ 12% and Rs. 2,000 as cost and compensation. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. As per terms of the policy the respondent was liable to replace or to pay the value of the articles stolen from the office of the appellant and since the theft of cash amounting to Rs. 63,000 took place in the night hours which was beyond the business hours the said claim was rightly repudiated by the respondent and rightly repelled by the District Forum. 4. As regards the price of other articles namely laser printers,...

Geeta Vinay Impex Vs. Designated Authority Ministry of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s, Geeta Vinay Impex had imported measuring tapes and cleared the same under bill of entry No. 306336 dated 22nd April, 2003. Subsequently, they received a show cause notice dated 8th August, 2003 from the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi demanding duty of Rs. 14,54,676 as anti-dumping duty. The appellants, therefore, filed appeal challenging the show cause notice and the notification No.147/2003-Cus dated 7th October, 2003 and the final findings of the designated authority notified on 1st September, 2004 under notification No. 14/31/2002-DGAD-dated 1st September, 2003. They also filed misc.application and stay application.2. Their application and the appeal was opposed by the domestic industry on the ground that they have no locus standi for filing this appeal.3. The appellants pleaded that they are the aggrieved person and, therefore, they have right to appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act and Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. It was conte...

Super Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals of the Revenue and one appeal of the assessee are directed against the same order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise. They were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The assessee is the manufacturer of PVC pipes, which are liable to Central Excise duty. On 28-7-98, the Officers of the Central Excise carried out a stock taking in the appellant's factory. The shortages of inputs and finished products were noticed. It is seen that a copy of stock taking report was also given to the assessee representative.3. Show cause notice dated 22-1-99 was issued proposing to recover duty in respect of finished products found short as well as to recover the Modvat credit taken in respect of the inputs found short. A specific charge made in the notice was that the appellant had cleared two consignments under the same invoice and verification had shown that Central Excise duty was discharged only in respect of one consignment.Pe...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vishva Vishal Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order. The Revenue has not filed a detailed affidavit explaining the delay. The contention is that necessary affidavit filed on 19-4-2005 and the same was not taken into consideration. Now, the Revenue filed copy of that affidavit. We have gone through the affidavit as per the details given in the affidavit, the impugned order received in the office of Commissioner of Central Excise on 21-1-2004 and the same was accepted by the Commissioner on 3-3-2004. Thereafter the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 5-7-04 directed to file the appeal against the impugned order. We find in spite of direction on 5-7-04, the appeal was filed on 7-12-04 further we find that under the provision of Central Excise Act, the Chief Commissioner has no power to issue such direction. In these circumstances, we find that as the delay in filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained by the Revenue, therefore, we...

Jeet Ram Enterprises, Hi-tech Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC552

1. These appeals are preferred by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 890-893-CE/DLH/2001 dated 24.9.2001 and the Revenue has also preferred an appeal against the same order.2. Relevant facts for our consideration are that the officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-I visited the premises of one of the appellants i.e. M/s Kandhari Radio Corporation and the residential premises of the proprietor of the said firm. The officers on a reasonable belief resumed records and documents and based on further investigation, came to a conclusion that all the appellants i.e. M/s Jeet Enterprises, M/s Hi-Tech and M/s Kandhari Separator Industries were involved in the manufacture of branded goods of M/s "KRC" and were availing ineligible benefit of SSI exemption. Separate show cause notices were issued to all the three units demanding duty and penalty and on adjudication the duty was confirmed Page 0554 and penalties imposed. Penalty was also imposed on the proprietor/constit...