Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Medpro Pharma Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1.In this appeal, a question has arisen as to whether the services provided by the appellant were in the nature of "clearing and forwarding agent" as contemplated by the relevant definition Clause 65(25) of the Finance Act defining "clearing and forwarding agent" which reads as follows: 65(25) "Clearing and forwarding agent" means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, connected with the clearing and forwarding operations in any manner to any other person and includes a consignment agent: 2. The authorities below have classified the services provided by the appellant to their principal under the category "clearing and forwarding agent" and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,28,533/- of Service tax due to be paid for the period between July, 2001 and 15th August, 2002.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the appellant was not providing "clearing and forwarding" services and was pro...

Cce Vs. India Glycol Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appcal dated 17.6.2003 wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that out of all the items in dispute one of the item i.e. Gas scrubbers and Spare packed bed for scrubber was imported by the respondents and they availed Modvat credit on the said items as capital goods. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denial credit on the said item on the ground that these are chemical media and would not fall under the category capital goods. The respondents contested the show cause notice on the ground that these chemical media are used for separation of impurities from the intake air and are installed in the D.G. sets.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand against which on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents coming to the conclusion that the said product fall under Heading No. 84.21 and are covered u...

indira Rai and anr. Vs. Vatika Plantations (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT646

A.K. Sikri, J.1. There are disputes between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1. In view of arbitration agreement between the parties, the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the arbitration is in progress. Initially, the respondent No.2 was appointed as the arbitrator. However, for certain reasons, which would be stated later at appropriate stage, the respondent No.2 discontinued with the proceedings and vide order dated 2nd April, 2003 left the parties to appoint a new arbitrator. Thereafter, Mr.Anil Bhalla, the respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.3 as the arbitrator and this was communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 29th April, 2003. The appointment of the respondent No.3 as the new arbitrator is not acceptable to the petitioners. They feel that the respondent No.1 earlier objected to the continuation of the respondent No.2 as the arbitrator on frivolous grounds to ease him out so that the respondent No.1 could appoint another arbitrator of his choice. ...

Crb Capital Markets Limited Vs. Reserve Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2006)BC57; [2007]135CompCas86(Delhi); (2006)6CompLJ485(Del); 127(2006)DLT576; [2006]72SCL256(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The Reserve Bank of India(in short the `RBI') under the powers conferred under Section 45MC(1)(d) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(hereinafter referred to as the `RBI Act') filed the winding up petition, CP.No.191/97 in this Court.2. The relevant portion of Section 45MC(1)(d) of the RBI Act reads as follows:-45MC. Power of Bank to file winding up petition.-(1) The Bank, on being satisfied that a non-banking financial companyd) the continuance of the non-banking financial company is detrimental to the public interest or to the interest of depositors of the company, may file an application for winding up of such non-banking financial company under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).3. Even though the original petition does not specify whether it was filed under Section 45MC(1)(d) of the RBI Act, during the hearing of the CA.1416/90 which was filed by the company convening the meeting of the creditors, the learned counsel for the applicant/RBI had submitted that ...

Subhash Chander Kathuria Vs. Umed Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi194; 127(2006)DLT292

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction. He is seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 27th July, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Agreement'). As per the plaintiff, vide this Agreement the defendants agreed to sell agricultural land measuring 34 bighas 1 biswas, particulars whereof are given in para 1 of the plaint, for a total consideration of Rs.20,92,656/-. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs was given as earnest money. The suit was filed on 16th February, 1999. The defendants have contested the suit by raising various pleas on merits as well as objections to the maintainability of this suit. On 27th September, 2004, following issues were framed which would reflect the nature of disputes raised by the defendants:1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation OPD.2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is under valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD3. Whether the plaintif...

Javed Rahat and ors. Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi200; 129(2006)DLT104; 2006(87)DRJ175

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.5.2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.3.The petitioner/appellant filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-i)to restrain the members of the said expired body of Bar Council of Delhi from discharging the statutory duties of State Bar Council and to stay the elections on 29.9.2003 and 30.9.2003; andii) to quash the notice dated 25.8.2003 and 17.9.2003 of the expired Bar Council of Delhi; andiii) to declare the process of election held by the members of the said expired Bar Council of Delhi as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules and Bar Council of Delhi Rules;iv) to quash all decisions/orders/resolutions passed by the sa...

Shri G.S. Saluja Vs. Ifci Venture Capital Funds Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT651; 2006(87)DRJ534

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside order dated 21.10.2005 directing framing of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a matter under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. I have heard Mr. Satish Tamta learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through copies of the documents placed on the file.3. Persual of the complaint shows that the accused No. 1-Company and its whole time Directors had approached the complainant for grant of short term loan facility of Rs. 100 lacs as per loan agreement dated 15.3.2002 executed between the complainant and accused No. 1-Company. The accused No. 1 issued three cheques mentioned in para No. 4 of the complaint towards part payment of the loan. The said cheques were dishonoured.4. It is averred in para-2 of the complaint that accused No. 2 is the Managing Director and accused No. 3 to 6 are whole time Directors of acc...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shri Arun Prasada

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT32; 2006(87)DRJ208; 2007(2)SLJ246(Delhi)

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1.This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2005 by which he has allowed the writ petition. 2. Heard counsels 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 petitioner in the writ petition (respondent herein) was appointed as Managing Director, IRCON International Limited w.e.f. 16.05.1997 vide Ministry of Railways letter dated 15.10.1997 on contractual basis for a period of three years and was to be governed by the Discipline & Appeal Rules of IRCON. True copy of the same is Annexure P-1A to the writ petition. Thereafter the Ministry of Railways vide letter dated 22.11.1999 was pleased to extend the service of the petitioner up to 31.01.2002. On completion of the said contractual term of appointment as Managing Director of IRCON International Limited,...

Madan Aggarwal Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)55; (2006)143PLR7

J.P. Singh, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 27.7.1999 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act passed by Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, and order dated 10.2.2005 also passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, declining to recall the summoning order.2. I have heard Ms. CM. Chopra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shobha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Santosh Kohli, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the point of admission, and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.3. As per complaint under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the case of the complainant is that it is a Government company. Its object is to promote small scale industrial units in the country. In para 3 it is alleged that accused No. 1 is a company having its registe...

Chief Engg. Ranjit Sagar Dam Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter is referred to Larger Bench by a division Bench in its referral Order No. 207/05-Ex dated 26.7.2005. At Para No. 2 the referral Bench noted as follows: It is the contention of the revenue that the issue remains covered against the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2002 (150) ELT 216. Learned Counsel for the assessee also fairly concedes this position, even though he seeks to distinguish that decision on some other grounds like there being no sale or purchase. We note that the exemption is in regard to "concrete mix manufacturer" at side and used at site. Perusal of the Indian Standard specifications and other materials produced before us would appear to suggest that there is no difference between concrete mix and ready mix concrete. After all, concrete mix for construction is the same irrespective of method of preparation. In this view of the matter, we are not able to agree with the decisi...