Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

M.D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. Uma Shankar Kamal NaraIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi361; 127(2006)DLT482; 2006(86)DRJ769

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.IA No. 3710/20031. This is an application filed under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the CPC') on behalf of defendants No. 1 & 2 seeking leave to defend. The plaintiff had filed this suit under Order xxxvII Rule 1 based upon four cheques which had been issued by the defendant No. 2 in favor of the plaintiff. The averments contained in the plaint disclose that the plaintiff is engaged in the Import & Export of Precious metals. The defendants No. 1 and 2 are in the jewellery business. It is averred that the plaintiff and the said defendants have had dealings for some time and they have a running account between them. Defendant Nos. 3 & 4 were directed to be deleted from the array of parties by an order of this Court on 14.11.2005. The reason being that the defendant No. 1 is not a partnership firm as alleged in the plaint but a proprietorship concern of which the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor. 2. It ...

Prem Chand Soni and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT20

Markandeya Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21st November, 2005. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records.It appears that proceedings under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act, 1954 was initiated against the appellants but subsequently these were dropped. Now, the grievance of the appellants is that the proceedings were mala fide. In these circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the appellants is to file a suit for damages and not to file a writ petition.2. It may be mentioned that when a party claims damages, ordinarily it should file a Civil Suit and not a writ petition. It is only in some very rare cases e.g. of custodial death, etc., that damages are granted in a writ petition, but the ordinary rule is that one has to file a Civil Suit for such relief and not a writ petition. This is not one of the exceptional cases.3. The appeal stands dismissed....

Balsara Home Products Ltd. and Sh. Charanjit Mohan Vs. Director Genera ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2006)BC67; 2006(1)CTLJ458(Del); 126(2006)DLT391; 2006(86)DRJ735

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The grievance of the Petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is with respect to Tender Enquiry No. P/72002/2005-06/Q/ST-9(460)Odomos/Mosfree dated 20th September, 2004 floated by Respondents No. 1 to 4. According to the Petitioners, the offer of Respondent No. 5 ought not to have been considered by these Respondents since a registration certificate issued by the Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) did not accompany it, contrary to Clause 12 of the tender conditions. The additional grievance of the Petitioners is that after negotiations with the Tender Purchase Committee, since their bid was lower than that of Respondent No. 5, it should be accepted in preference to the bid of Respondent No. 5. We find no substance in either of the grievances of the Petitioners and dismiss the writ petition.2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 floated a tender published in the Statesman of 25th August, 2004 for Odomos cream and Mosfree lotion, both being mosqui...

Kandhari Rubber Ltd. Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC208; 127(2006)DLT367

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the defendants under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 for staying further proceedings in the present suit. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of money from the defendants.2. The learned counsel for the defendants has stated with reference to the contents of this application that the defendants filed a reference dated 03.02.2004 before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, Department of Economic Affairs, (Ministry of Finance), (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). He further stated that the reference which was filed on 03.02.2004 by the defendants under Section 15 of the said Act ultimately came to be registered after scrutiny on 17.03.2004 as indicated by a letter issued by the Registrar of BIFR. A copy of the ...

C.B.S.E. Vs. B.R. Uppal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT660; 2007(1)SLJ431(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.3.2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since the facts of the case are stated in the impugned order, they are not repeated herein. 2. It appears that a provisional seniority list was published on 20.2.1982 inviting objections. Thereafter a final seniority list was published on 19.6.1982. A writ petition was filed in 1988 after a delay of six years. In our opinion, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and should not have been heard on merits at all. 3. It may be mentioned that when a final seniority list is published, then certain rights accrue to the persons whose names are contained in that seniority list. If anybody has any grievance against that seniority list, he should challenge it within a reasonable time. In the present case, the writ petition was filed after six years of the publication of the final seniority list. I...

Shri Devi Dutt S/O Shri Lalmoni and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the facts are identical, involving common question of law, OAs are disposed of by this common order in order to avoid multiplicity.2. Applicants are Valvemen by trade and have been serving in Military Engineering Service (MES. They have been appointed during the interregnum 1981-1991 and have sought revision of pay scale in the skilled grade with arrears from 16.10.1981.3. A similar matter in OA-51/2002 had come up before the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., wherein by an order dated 18.10.2002, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in OA-206/1995 - Mahendra Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which was upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan in WP No. 1391/99 by order dated 16.3.2000. An SLP No. 3948/2000 was filed before the Apex Court against the order of the Rajasthan High Court which was dismissed on 24.9.2001 and relief was accorded to petitioners therein for grant of skilled scale from the initial date of appointment...

B.T. Technet Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessce against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-10-2004 on the sole ground that the Id.Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,06,000 under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of development of software. It entered into an agreement on 1-4-2001 with M/s. FIITJEE Limited for introducing parties interested for becoming franchisees of M/s. FIITJEE Limited. Since this was not the main business of the assessee, it entered into another agreement with M/s. Vineet Estates Private Limited and appointed the said company as its sub-agent for rendering professional services for introducing parties interested in becoming franchisees of M/s. FIITJEE Limited. The assessee made payment of Rs. 30 lakhs as commission to M/s. Vineet Estates Private Limited which was credited in its account on 21-4-2001 for professional services rende...

Vandana Singh and anr. Vs. Ndmc

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT102

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.02.2005 by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The Appellants were admittedly engaged as teachers by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) on contractual tenures and it had been clarified that the said engagement would not confer any right on them to claim regular appointment. On each occasion when the contract was renewed it had also been clarified that the extension would continue for the tenure, or till the posts are filled-up on regular basis, whichever is earlier. 5. By means of the writ petition, the petitioners/ appellants prayed that they should be regularized. The writ petition has been dismissed and hence the present appeal. 6. A Division Bench of ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Long Life Tools (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The respondents are 100% EOUs and as per condition of licence issued to them for warehousing the goods under the provisions of Section 58 of the Customs Act, cost recovery charges are required to be deposited by them. They deposited the cost recovery charges but filed a refund claim for the said charges on the ground that they have not availed the services of the Customs officers. The Dy. Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the noticee deposited the amount to fulfil one of the conditions of the licence granted for Private Bonded Warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the refund claim filed by the noticee is not covered under any of the provisions of the Customs Act or Rules or Central Excise Act or the Rules, The noticee also did not bring forward any directions of the Govt. for refund of any such amounts. Both the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who relying on the abstract from a book and treating it as the instru...

Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STT427

1. The appellants were issued show cause notice demanding Service tax on the services of Consulting Engineer received by them during 1998-99 in terms of their Agreement dated 5-11-97 with M/s. WOCO Franz Josef Wolf & Co., Germany. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Dy.Commissioner under his order dated 31-12-2003 wherein he confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the ground that the services received by the present appellants is covered under the category of the Consulting Engineers and the appellants were liable for payment of service tax.The Commissioner (Appeals), however, held that service received by the present appellants although falls under the category of Consulting Engineers but appellants are not liable to pay service tax as they were receiver of the service.Revenue filed appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding them not liable to pay service tax being the receiver of the service prior to amendment to Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rul...