Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 11 of about 273 results (0.034 seconds)Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Motherson Auto Component Engg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT96TriDel
1. The respondents herein are receivers of consulting engineering services from M/s. WOCO Franz Wolf & Co. Germany with whom they entered into agreement for know-how and license agreement on 5-11-1997. They paid technical know-how fees in consideration of technical assistance and consulting services to M/s. Woco during the period 1998 to 1999.Service tax was not paid either by M/s. Woco or by the respondents.Hence, show cause notice proposing recovery of service tax of Rs. 11,88,061.75 and proposing imposition of penalty, was issued to the respondents. The notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner who confirmed demand of service tax along with interest and also imposed penalty of amount equal to the tax plus penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994; Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the period of dispute was prior to 28-2-1999 and prior to August 2002 when service tax rule wa...
Tag this Judgment!Pashupati Fabrics Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT41TriDel
1. The appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in the manufacture and export of yarn. A duty demand of about Rs. 66 crores has been made under the impugned order on the ground that the appellant failed to achieve Export Performance in terms of Export-Import Policy.Duty demand is in respect of all capital goods and inputs received duty free by the appellant during the period from 1995-96 to 2000-2001. Bulk of the demand (approx. Rs. 56 crores) is in regard to capital goods.2. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The contention of the learned Counsel is that no duty demand should have been raised in the present case inasmuch as there is no complaint that the appellant has used the machinery and inputs for any purpose other than export production. It is also being pointed out that the appellant has also met the Net Foreign Exchange Performance criterion. With regard to Export Performance, the submission of the appellant is that, quantity of exports being depen...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Bakshi Through Its Karta K.S. Bakshi Vs. P.M. Mathrani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT597; (2005)141PLR26
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of applications number being IAs No. 11116/1999 in CS (OS) No. 225/1998; 11121/99 in CS(OS) No. 226/1998; 11119/1999 in CS(OS) No. 227/1998; 11142/1999 in CS(OS) No. 228/1998; and 11140/99 in CS(OS) No. 229/1998 filed by Smt. Sarla Mishra under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying to be imp leaded as a defendant in the suit(s).2. All applications are identical. In all the captioned suits, plaintiffs are different but the defendant is common. Defendant is Sh. P.M. Mathrani.3. Suits seek specific performance of an agreement for sale stated to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff(s). It is stated in the plaints that the defendant is co-owner of 5/24th share in property bearing No. 9, Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. It is stated that the land in question is comprised of a plot admeasuring 1547 square yards held under a perpetual lease from the President of India executed in favor of Sh. M.P. Mathrani, father of th...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Tara Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT470; 2005(81)DRJ567
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges award dated 17.9.2001 passed by Justice M.L. Jain (Retd.)2. Objectors filed a suit in this Court for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts being Suit No. 2752/89. It was stated in the plaint that the first objector was a qualified Engineer and that objectors No. 2 and 3 were his sons. Objector No. 1 was known to one B.P. Jain, an Assistant Engineer with CPWD. Respondent No. 7 was brother of B.P. Jain. Respondent No. 1, Tara Chand Jain, was a close associate of B.P. Jain. Respondent No. 1 was engaged in business as a contractor and was working under the name and style 'M/s Jain Construction Co.' with office at 149, Civil Lines, South Muzaffar Nagar (U.P.). It was further averred that respondent No. 2 is the son of respondent No. 7, respondent No. 3 is the wife of respondent No. 7 and respondents 4 and 5 are the daughters of respondent No7. It was stated that respo...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lamba Vs. Jagdish Lamba and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: III(2005)BC276; 118(2005)DLT467; 2005(81)DRJ138
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. The applicant Jagdish Lamba, has prayed for review and modification of the order dated 10.5.2002 passed by this Court in suit nos. 3367/2002 to 3374/2002 making eight awards, as the rule of the Court and seeking condensation of delay in filing the application.2. Facts in brief are as follows: The family dispute amongst four brothers, namely, Madan Lal Lamba, Jagdish Lamba, Harish Lamba and Kailash Lamba in respect of various businesses, which were jointly carried out, was referred for decision to the arbitrators, who rendered eight awards dated 25.10.1986, distributing the assets amongst them. In terms of the awards, applicant Jagdish Lamba retired from partnership of M/s Volga restaurant with effect from 31.3.1986 and Madan Lal took over the business. In consideration thereof, Madan Lal was to pay to the applicant (Jagdish Lamba) a sum of Rs.4.38 lakhs on or before 31.12.1986, and no interest was awarded by the arbitrators. Three brothers accepted the Awards and the...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Arun Nirula Vs. Smt. Vidya Gandhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT497; 2005(81)DRJ18
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner Dr. Arun Nirula is seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes with the respondents in terms of the agreement dated 25.10.1996.2. Facts in brief are as follows: On 25.10.1996, petitioner entered into a partnership with the respondents, to carry on business for running guest house under the name and style of M/s. Ringo Guest House at Flat No. 17, Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001; and he was inducted as a partner in place of Smt. Shubh Nirula. The agreement inter alias provided that in case of any dispute amongst the parties in respect of this deed, same shall be decided by an arbitrator. Clause 22 of the Agreement in question reads as under:'That in case of any dispute between the parties in respect of this Deed or in respect of any matter relating to the Partnership Business, the same shall be decided by an Arbitrator under the Provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Shadi Lal and anr. Vs. Smt. Anita and State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT476; I(2005)DMC659; 2005(81)DRJ15
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners-Shadi Lal (father-in-law) and Smt.Prakasho Rani (mother-in-law) of the complainant are seeking quashing of the FIR No. 117/93 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC, P.S. Rajender Nagar, New Delhi, pending trial in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on the ground of compromise with the complainant (respondent No. 2). The petition is duly supported by affidavits of the petitioners and the complainant (respondent No. 2.)2. Facts in brief are as follows : The above case was registered on the complaint lodged by Smt.Anita, alleging that she was induced by misrepresentation to marry; that after marriage she was tortured and turned out of the matrimonial home. She made allegations against her husband, as well as sister-in-law (Smt. Sunita); and last para of the complaint reads as under:'I have been tortured by my husband for denying me marital company for over a year and keeping me only after my parents paid the...
Tag this Judgment!Kundal Lal Vs. Indian Red Cross Society and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT72; 2005(81)DRJ124; 2006(1)SLJ261(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition it has been prayed that the Order dated 24.6.2002 imposing punishment of forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect as well as the transfer of the Petitioner from the National Headquarters to Arakonam, Tamil Nadu be quashed; the Order dated 3.9.2000 terminating the services of the Petitioner be quashed and the Petitioner be reinstated with all consequential benefits.2. The first incident which has been narrated in the petition and relied upon pertains to the Respondent's Memorandum dated 15.5.2002, bringing to the notice of the Petitioner that he had been 'arrogant and indecent', and 'rude and defiant' in his behavior to his superior, Colonel A.S. Budhiraja. Thereafter, by Memorandum dated 30.5.2002 other alleged misconducts were brought within the scope of the Inquiry. In my view it would be superfluous to go into the details for the reason that the Petitioner has admitted all these charges, attributing his misbehavior to mental strai...
Tag this Judgment!Techno Construction and anr. Vs. Kunj Vihar Co-operative Group Housing ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT591; 2005(81)DRJ233
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the act'), M/s Techno Construction, through one of its partners, has prayed for ad-interim injunction restraining M/s Kunj Vihar Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter, 'respondents') from terminating the construction agreement dated 13.11.2001 and restraining them from awarding the contract for completion of the unfinished work, under the said agreement to any third party till the conclusion of arbitral proceedings between the parties.2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows. The respondents floated tender for construction of high-rise, residential flats at Plot No.19, Sector -12, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'the site'). Petitioners' tender was accepted and on 13.11.2001 an agreement was executed, in respect of the construction work (hereinafter, 'the Agreement'); possession of the site was given to them and they comme...
Tag this Judgment!Ambiance India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Naveen Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 122(2005)DLT421; 2005(81)DRJ538; [2005(106)FLR1119]
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The plaintiff seeks an ad interim injunction till disposal of the suit to restrain the defendant from continuing in the employment of M/s. Indigo Orient Limited and to divulge information, know-how and trade secrets which the defendant has acquired during his employment with the plaintiff-Company.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff-Company as a Fabric Technologist. Vide an Agreement dated 30th August, 2003, he was appointed as a Client Executive considering his efficiency and work. According to the plaintiff, the Agreement between the plaintiff and defendant provided that during the continuance of his employment, the defendant shall not engage directly or indirectly in any other occupation, business or employment or any similar business or occupation and would not divulge anything which may adversely affect the business of the plaintiff-Company. It was also provided that durin...
Tag this Judgment!