Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Sangam Iron and Steel Company Through Shri Krishan Lal Gulati S/O Shri ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT662

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th November, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing WP (C) No.1246 of 1987 filed by the Appellant.2. The Appellant is an iron merchant and was earlier operating from premises bearing No.T-885, D.B. Gupta Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.3.The Appellant was asked to shift from the site in its occupation and in lieu thereof, on an application made by it on 16th October, 1971 the Appellant was allotted Plot No.80, Loha Mandi, Naraina Warehousing Scheme, New Delhi. The allotment letter is important and reads as follows:-'M/s. Sangam Iron and Steel Co.T-885, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,New Delhi.With reference to your application dated 16.10.71, I am directed to inform you that since you have voluntarily agreed to vacate the premises under your occupation at No.T-885, D.B. Gupta Road and started shifting, it has been decided to allow you to occupy plot No.80 measuring 250 sq. yds. Appx. in Naraina ware housing ...

Rajesh Bagga Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT312; 2005(84)DRJ392

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.809/2002 whereby the learned Judge has disposed of the objection holding that notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. could be served on the petitioner, in the facts of the case. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioner has filed this revision petition.2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that by a complaint under Section 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dated 04.08.1998 the complainant had sought to prosecute the first accused, namely, M/s Digphaul Company for the aforesaid offences. 3. In the relevant paragraph in the complaint, as to who is in charge of the working of the Company, it is mentioned that ?oaccused no.1 is the company/firm which was in-charge and was responsible to the accused, at the time when offence was committed. Hence, the accused no.1, is liable to be prosecuted and punished in accordance with ...

D.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR568(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT644

R.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner, above named, has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'The Act') for a direction on the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the Court and thereafter to make an order of reference of the claims / disputes detailed in para 14 of the petition through arbitration in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract.2. The petition has been made with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is a Government contractor and was awarded the work contract vide letter No.74-W/6/61/WA dated 22.4.1988. The disputes/ differences arose between the parties in relation to the said work contract. The contract is governed by the General Conditions of Contract and Special Conditions of contract. Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract provide for the settlement of disputes / differences between the parties through the mechanism of arbitration. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has total 11...

A.C. Footwear Co. and anr. Vs. Deiem (India) Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT278; 2006(32)PTC91(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 51A of the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the `1911 Act') for cancellation of design No.166627 of respondent No.1.2. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed their written statement.3. However, the respondents were subsequently proceeded ex parte on 22.11.2004.4. The subject matter of dispute is the design in respect of the sole of the shoe which has been registered with the Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta. It is the submission of the petitioner that design ought not to have been registered in view of the dual plea : firstly that the design has been previously registered in India and secondly the design is not a new or an original design.5. The plea raised by the respondents is that the petitioner was pirating the design of respondent No.1 which was original.6. Before proceeding on the merits of the controversy, it would be relevant to take note of the fact that the 19...

Krishan Lal Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR565(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT740

R.C. Jain, J.1. The above named petitioner (to be referred as Contractor) has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a direction on the respondent to file arbitration agreement between the parties and to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause 64 of General Conditions of Contract for adjudication of all the claims of the petitioner relating to the contract, broadly indicated in para 11 of the petition. 2. The basis of filing the present petition is that the petitioner, vide an agreement No.90-ACs/C/DLI dated 3rd November, 1988, had entered into a contract with the respondent for providing road boundary wall earth work etc. in the store complex of D.S.K.P./C/Store Office at Shakurbasti. The said agreement between the parties contains an arbitration agreement in clause 64 of the 'General Conditions of Contract, Regulations and Instructions for tenderers' and 'Standard Forms of Contract', for settlement of all the disputes/differences arising be...

Rajendra Jaina Vs. Gaja Nand Derelya

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant seeking compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent inasmuch as in not executing the sale deed of a plot in respect of which an advance amount of Rs. 15,000 was paid out of the sale consideration of Rs. 1,51,000, was dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.11.1994 with cost of Rs. 2,000 being a false and vexatious complaint. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent approached the appellant at Delhi on 10.4.1989, representing that he was the owner of plot of land measuring approximately 833 sq. yds. (75 ft. x 100 ft) situated at Sidhartha Nagar, behind Derolya Petrol Pump. Nindaun Nidauti Road, Sri Mahavirji, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan and that there was Government proposal to construct a Pucca Metalled Road of 24 ft. width adjacent to the said plot which would give a direct access to the said plot. He further menti...

Catvision Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal is directed against duty demands made in respect of free supply of 'receivers' and certain receipts during the period 1989-92.The demands have been raised on the ground that the short levy had taken place on account of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The demand has been confirmed by invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.3. Duty demand of over Rs. 8 lakhs is in respect of free supply of receivers. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the receivers in question were supplied free along with Direct Reception Systems (DRS). He has pointed out that the fact about such free supply had been mentioned in the price list filed in proforma-II from time to time. Learned Counsel also pointed out that such free supply was figuring in gate passes issued as well as in the invoices.The contention of the learned Counsel is that once the fact of free supply was mentioned in price list, GP-I and invoices, Revenue autho...

Ajanta Fabrication Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The authorities below have subjected the activity of the appellant to service tax under the head 'Advertising Agency' under Section 65 (1), at the relevant time. According to the learned Consultant, the hoardings were prepared as per the design supplied to the appellant and these were placed at places intimated to the appellant. The appellant did not, therefore, function as 'Advertising Agency'. This contention cannot be accepted at this stage, because it is clear, prima, facie, that the appellant was making hoarding which is included in the definition of "advertisement". It is stated before us that the appellant paid sales tax on the entire amount and, therefore, he cannot be held liable to pay the tax, again under the head taxable service. He also submitted that material was used for preparing the hoardings The value whereof ought to have been deducted.2. It does appear from the impugned order that authority did not direct itself at all to the aspect, whether the value of the mat...

Eicher Tractors Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In view of the conflicting decision on the issue in respect of the correct valuation of the Capital goods and the inputs on which Cenvat Credit has been availed when removed as such, the issue has been referred to the Larger Bench.2. The appellants availed the Cenvat Credit on the inputs purchased by them for use in their final products. They removed the inputs by reversing the credit availed on such inputs when removed from their factory.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of lC engines and they purchase the duty paid inputs for use in their final products and avail Credit of the duty paid on such inputs as provided under the Cenvat Credit Rules, and at times remove such duty paid inputs from the factory to their marketing division by reversing the credit taken on such inputs. The Revenue objected the reversal of the credit on such inputs on the ground that as per Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, on the removal of the inputs the ma...

Vazir Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This group of appeals has been heard together since common points are involved and they are filed by the same appellants. In all these matters, the controversy centres around the liability of the appellants in respect of the imports of the material made as "plastic waste and scrap", which according to the Revenue did not fall under that category. The appellants have challenged the imposition of duty, redemption fine and penalty in these appeals.2. In Appeals No. C/415 and C/416/01, show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the appellants alleging that the importer had mis-declared the cargo for which Bill of Entry No. 375, dated 15-6-1999 was filed. The cargo was declared as plastic scrap (polyethylene) under sub-heading 3915.90, whereas the useable and non-useable rolls found during the examination should have been shown separately under Heading 3921. It was also alleged that the value declared for assessment could not be taken as the transaction v...