Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Killick Nixon Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR218(Delhi); I(2006)BC34; 124(2005)DLT31; 2005(84)DRJ559; (2005)141PLR59

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. This is an application filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the `said Act') in respect of the award of the sole arbitrator Mr. Shiv Prasad dated 26.12.1989.2. The Director General of Supplies and Disposal invited tenders for supply of drilling rigs and accessories for the Engineer in Chief, Public Health Engineer Division of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No.2 on 17.01.1980. The petitioner submitted his quotation on 25.01.1980. There were certain subsequent meetings held in respect of the tender submitted by the petitioner and on 11.04.1980 the tender was accepted.3. The supplies were made though there was delay and the petitioner sought extension of time on various accounts which was granted.4. A limited dispute arose between the parties on account of the failure of the respondent to pay the balance price and the fulcrum of the dispute is the price preference clause in the agreement between the p...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raghav Behl

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)488; [2006]286ITR134(Delhi)

ORDER1. The CIT has recorded a clear finding of fact to the effect that although there was no documentary evidence to support the claim made by the assesses that shares had boon purchased by Deepak Choudhary, HUF and Shri. P.S. Kalra, HUF on behalf of the assessed, yet the circumstantial evidence sufficiently showed that such purchases were made and that since the assessed could not make the payment due to shortage of funds, the assessed was compelled to pay interest till the date the delivery of the shares was taken by him. This is evident from the following para from the said order of the CIT :It is a fact that the assessed does not have any documentary evidence to support the claim but all the circumstantial evidences are there to prove that the shares were purchased by the two parties on behalf of the assessed and since the assessed could not make the payment due to shortage of funds the assessed was compelled to pay interest till the date of delivery taken by the assessed. therefo...

Sanmati Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. S. Chandrasekhar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a dealer of motor vehicles. It was arraigned as respondent No. 3 in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Shri S. Chandra Sekhar whereas its Director Shri R.K. Jain was arraigned as respondent No. 1 and its General Manager, Shri Ranganathan Aiyar, was arraigned as respondent No. 2. 2. On account of unfair trade practice inasmuch as that an old used car of the model of 2002 was sold by it to respondent No. 1 by representing it as a new car of model of 2004, appellant has been directed to refund the cost of the car with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase and also pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of the complaint in case its Director R.K. Jain finds it difficult to replace the old car with a new car of 2004 model. 3. We have perused the registration certificate of the car as well as the various documents and find from the record that the car was sold by the appellant to represent as model of 2004 but the insurance papers indicated the car of 2002 y...

Ajanta Color Lab Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR351

1. At the instance of both the sides, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing, since the issue involved is short.2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals - II) made on 28.04.2005 dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellant filed to make the pre-deposit of Rs. 5,98,001/- as directed by the order dated 18.3.2005, nor did they seek further time to make the pre-deposit.3. The appellants are engaged in the development and taking out prints of exposed photographic films and are registered under the Service Tax Rules, 1994 for payment of Service Tax in the category of photography services, which is a taxable service as defined under Section 67 (104) (zb) [now Section 67 (105)(zb)]. The appellant availed of exemption under notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 with effect from 1.7.2003 from payment of service tax on that part of taxable services which represented the cost of photographic paper and chemicals used during the process of deve...

Rajmahal Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR347

1. The applicant M/s. Rajmahal Hotel has requested for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of service tax and penalty imposed on the ground that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards the service tax liability had already been deposited by them and they are unable to deposit the entire amount of service tax and penalty which will cause financial hardship to them.2. It was contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly taken the view that the abatement of 40% from the value of catering services provided to work out the service tax is allowable to them. They were exempt from service tax during the major period of the demand under Notification 12/2001-ST dated 20.12.2001. Therefore, they may not be asked to deposit the amount of service tax determined by the lower authorities.3. On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended that the Notification 12/2001-ST dated 20.12.2001 exempts taxable service provided by the hotel as mandap keeper in such cases where services provided include catering...

Sherwani Industrial Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT353TriDel

1. During the course of the arguments, the learned consultant for the appellant states that the appellant is prepared to deposit 50% of the service tax amount and the rest of the amount payable under the impugned order may be waived during the pendency of the appeal.2. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the services rendered by the appellant under the agreement, a copy of which is placed on record, came within the ambit of Clause 31 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 in the category of "Consulting Engineer", which means any professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm who, either directly or indirectly renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to a client in one or more disciplines of engineering.2.1 In the show cause notice, it was alleged that under the agreement in question, the services rendered by those of "consulting engineer" and that they also came under the definition of "management consultant" which as defined m...

iqbal Construction Co. Vs. Gas Authority of India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT456

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner has pleaded that in response to a notice inviting tender on behalf of respondent to execute the work for construction of township of LPG pipelines from Jam Nagar to Loni via Delhi and for construction of 34 numbers of residential houses and guest houses-cum-community centre at Ajmer, the petitioner filed a tender which was accepted and the petitioner was awarded the work. The work was to be concluded in 12 months and the date of commencement was 21st December, 2000 and the value of the contract was Rs. 3,45,01,000/-.2. The petitioner contended that he concluded the work within the stipulated time and the respondent was obligated to make the payment, however, respondent lastly paid an amount of Rs. 1,72,050/- on 26th December, 2003 and thereafter did not make payment of balance sum of Rs. 15,12,055/-. The petitioner al...

Javed Ahmed Munshi Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT403; 2005(84)DRJ421

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The only contention raised in this appeal by learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 53-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was inserted by Act 26 of 1955, the maximum sentence awardable to an accused convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is five years only. It is submitted that the sentence of transportation for 14 years as mentioned in Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is deemed to have been omitted in view of Section 53-A of the IPC which was introduced by way of Amendment Act 26 of 1955. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that sentence of 14 years RI and a fine of Rs.30,000/- awarded to the appellant by the Trial Court under Section 5 of the Act vide orders dated 28.8.2001 in FIR No. 180/1999, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, is not sustainable and since the appellant has already undergone a sentence of more than five years, he does not wish to make any further submission on the merits of the appeal. 2. Vide o...

Shri Pradeep Saith Vs. Shri S.K. Mehta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR222(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT26

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. A-49, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi and had entered into an agreement dated 25.05.1992 with Sahil Builders for re-development of the property. Subsequently a tripartite agreement was signed dated 18.03.1994 between the petitioner, Sahil Builders and the respondents herein in terms whereof all the rights of Sahil Builders were assigned to the respondent on payment of Rs. 9 lakhs by the respondent to Sahil Builders. On the same day the petitioner and the respondent entered into a property development agreement for the re-development of the property. In terms of the agreement dated 18.03.1994, the development had to be made by the respondent of a two storyed building with terrace. There were two other material terms agreed upon which are relevant for the present disputes : (i) a deed of license by the respondent in favor of the petitioner in the top floor of property No. A-54, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi to provide a...

Shri Ramesh Chand Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT91; 2006(87)DRJ273

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs claim to be the joint owners of a freehold plot of land bearing number 41, Category III, Group A, admeasuring 401.34 square yards located in Kalindi Colony, Village Kilokri, New Delhi in pursuance to a registered sale deed dated 05.08.1986. The plaintiffs purchased the plot from one Smt.Laxmi Dewan, who in turn had purchased it from one Smt. Raj Kumar. Smt. Raj Kumar was the original allottee of the plot of land having purchased it from Swatantra Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited vide a sale letter dated 07.10.65. 2. The society had submitted a lay out plan for sanction to the Standing Committee of the MCD and the lay out was sanctioned by the Resolution number 11 dated 01.10.58. The total land area was 20 acres, out of which area allotted for residential plots was 13.1 acres, for roads was 4.4 acres and that covered for parks and open spaces was 1.2 acres. The sanctioned lay out plan is stated to have irregular boundaries with the res...