Delhi Court February 2005 Judgments

Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Vikas Pharma ( ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT644; 2005(80)DRJ744

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2002 in CWP No.5696/02. The impugned judgment had allowed the respondents' writ petition and directed recording of the change in the Constitution in respect of allotment of an Industrial plot subject to payment of unearned increase, as applicable. Further direction to handover possession upon payment of such unearned increase was also issued.2. The respondent was incorporated as a Pvt. Ltd. Company on1.10.1993. Originally it was a partnership concern comprising of two persons, namely Shri Vijay Bajaj and Ms. Madhu Rani.3. The respondent had applied for allotment of an industrial plot for the purpose of re-location of its activities and shifting from non-conforming areas, pursuant to certain directions issued by the Supreme Court.4.The appellant allotted a plot to the respondent on 15.12.2000; the latter deposited Rs.10,50,000/- by its letter dated 5.1.2001. ...

Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Central Warehousing Corpn.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2005)BC33; 2005(1)CTLJ353(Del); 118(2005)DLT159; 2005(80)DRJ542

D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Challenge in this writ petition is to a pre-qualification condition inserted in the Notice Inviting Tender (for short 'the NIT') issued by the Central Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the CWC, on 10 November 2004 for supply of CWC diary, Chemical and technical equipments, including 8000 Kgs of Deltamethrin 2.5% WP ARC. The challenge to the condition is laid on the ground of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality. 4. The factual matrix, in brief, is as follows:4. As noted above, the CWC floated tender dated 10 November 2004 for supply of various items, including the afore-mentioned Chemical for fumigation purposes. The petitioner claims to have learnt about the tender notice on 18 November 2004 from the website of the CWC. Being a major manufacturer of deltamethrin and interested in the supply of the said Chemical, the petitioner app...

Mr. J.K. Goel, Jr. Engineer Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through It ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT652; 2005(80)DRJ652

Vijender Jain, J.1. Counsel for the appellant has contended that his matter may be disposed of in terms of the decision in DDA vs. B.R. Sehgal in LPA No.955/2002 decided on 2nd February, 2005 where Division Bench of this Court has held that there was a delay on the part ofthe respondent to take expeditious measure and the attempt was only to cover up the inaction of his officer. Agreeing with the impugned order which was challenged by the respondent the Division Bench held as under:-'' We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that after a passage of two decades the finding of the enquiry may be inconclusive or inaccurate. The construction is bound to undergo the change to a large extent which seriously jeopardizes the defense of the officer. It was in view thereof that the conclusion has reached by the learned Single Judge that the right of the petitioner therein for speedy trial would be thrown to the winds if in such a case the enquiry is permitted toprocee...

Katikeya (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ681

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Disputes and differences between M/s. Katikeya (India) Private Limited, the objector, and Union of India were referred to the sole arbitrator, Sh. Ram Bahadur, Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India for adjudication. Claim of the company was rejected and counter claim of Union of India was accepted. Objector challenges the award.2. Mr. Sunil Mittal, learned counsel for the objector, inter alia, urged:- '(i) That the award suffers from a non-application of mind inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has recorded that there was no 'force majuare clause' in the contract between the parties, a finding which was contrary to the record, being documents U-7 and U-8.(ii) The award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record for the reason that material documents have been ignored, being U-7 and U-8.(iii) The award cannot be said to be a reasoned award.(iv) Risk purchase was not established and there was no evidence on record on basis of which count...

Yad Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT622; 2005(80)DRJ725

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The land of the appellants measuring approximately 55 bighas and 6 bids was located in Village Sabhapur was acquired in pursuance to the notification dated 10.08.1983 issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act' ).2. The Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.09.1986 in terms whereof the appellants were held entitled to compensation @ Rs.12,000/- per bigha. The parties aggrieved by the said Award sought a reference, which was decided in terms of the impugned judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 11.03.1993.3. It may be noticed that there were some inter-se disputes between the parties about the respective shares, which, however, stood determined in pursuance to the reference made under Section 30/31 of the said Act.4. In terms of the impugned judgment and decree, the rate of compensation was determined at Rs.21,500/- per bigha. The appellants, still aggrieved by ...

Uikam Investment and Finance Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)97

ORDER1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act), is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dt. 12th July, 2004. In the impugned order, the Appellate Court held as under :'In the present case, we are concerned with a factual issue as to whether there was remission of debt and as to whether there were facts and circumstances, which could suggest, that the creditor had remitted debt payable to the assessed. We have already held that there was no evidence on record to show that the debt or payment of interest was ever denied by the creditor.'2. It is not disputed before us that the assessed is maintaining a mercantile system of accountancy and also that it has been correctly noticed by the authority in the impugned order that the assessed is still showing the principal as outstanding in his books of account. These circumstances were taken as material pleas by the autho...

Mgt. of Maharaja Wears Vs. Naipal Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT398

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. On 20th February, 2002, an order was passed granting stay of the operation of the award subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. On 22nd April, 2002 the application seeking review of the order dated 20th February, 2002 was dismissed.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the order directing deposit of 50% of the awarded amount has not been complied with. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has now moved an application for discharge on the ground that the file has been withdrawn from him. Till now his appearance has not been permitted to be withdrawn. The Counsel is required to indicate to this Court whether or not the order of this Court has been complied with. Since the Counsel for the petitioner has no instructions, it is presumed that the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent is correct. The petitioner has enjoyed the interim order in his favor without deposit of the 50% amount covered under the interim order...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ishwar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR820]

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule, Pleadings are complete. The writ petition is taken up today for hearing.This writ petition challenges Order dated 23rd May, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. The only ground on which the issue No. 2 was decided against the petitioner DTC was non-examination of ticketless passenger travellers, the portion of law on this issue is well settled. It is surprising that in spite of the settled position of Jaw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court mutate of Haryana v. Rattan Singh 1977 (34) FLR 264 (SC), wherein it has been held that non-examination of ticketless passenger should not be a ground for setting aside the domestic enquiry, the Counsel for, DTC do not cite this and other relevant judgments before the Tribunal. A learned Single Judge of this Court, Madan Lokur J., in an exhaustive judgment in Delhi Transport Corporation v. N.L. Kakkar and Anr. : 2004 (101) FLR 777 (Del.) summarised the position of law...

Ravinder Kumar Vs. Harjai Chits (P.) Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant became the member of the Chit Fund floated by the respondent in the year 1991. Chit Fund was for 25 months. The appellant paid as many as 24 instalments, most of which he did not pay by due date. So much so, paid five instalments in one ago. According to the appellant he paid Rs. 13,650/- in all whereas the respondents returned Rs. 11,570/- after deducting commission of Rs. 750/- in term of Clause 8 of the agreement between the parties. According to the respondent he had received only Rs. 12,320/- from the appellant. 2. The complaint seeking Rs. 13,302/- toward maturity amount of the chit fund was dismissed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 28.5.1997 on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent inasmuch as the appellant did not pay the instalments well in time. The very fact that the respondent had accepted all the instalments payable towards the chit fund as per terms of the contract applicable t...

Phoel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT192TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Phoel Industries Ltd., the issue involved is whether HDPE pipes and coupler manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading 84.24 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or under Heading 39.17 of the Tariff.2. Shri B. L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured HDPE pipe and fittings, which are used in the manufacture of sprinkler irrigation system; that both the sprinkler irrigation system and parts thereof are chargeable to nil rate of duty in the Tariff itself; that, initially, they were paying the excise duty on the impugned products under Chapter 39 of the Tariff; that, subsequently, they stopped paying the duty realising that there is no duty leviable on the impugned products; that it has been held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Ghaziabad v. Rungta Irrigation Ltd, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 574 (T) that HDPE pipes used in the manufacture of sprinkler irrigation system are classifiable under su...