Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Max India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs. In 1992, the appellant imported four consignments of 'Wet Acry-lonitrile Fibre" and cleared the same under exempted rates (Notification No. 64 of 1979).Subsequently, show cause notices were issued alleging that "Wet Acry-lonitrile Fibre" was not eligible for the exemption as it was classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 5503.30. The ground being that only Acrylonitrile which is classifiable under Chapters mentioned in the Notification (28, 29 and 30) were eligible for exemption.2. The appellant contested the allegation pointing out that Chapter 55 is for textile items, and Acrylonitrile fibre under import being specifically for use in pharmaceutical industry, was classifiable under Chapter 29 and not under Chapter 55. Literature from the appellant's supplier (showing that the item, was pharmaceutical grade) and that the consignments were actually used in drug making were also produced.Appellant's contentions were rejected by the low...

Kulvinder Singh S/O Late Ajit Vs. Shri Anil Baijal, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This petition is directed against the alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of Tribunal's orders dated 3.12.2002 (Annexure-A) in OA No.1247/2002. OA No.1247/2002 was disposed of vide order dated 3.12.2002 with the following observations/directions to respondents: 11. As regards retention of the government accommodation by the applicants beyond the permissible period, I find that no action has been initiated by R-5 under PPE Act for eviction proceedings and therefore the ruling of the apex court in the case of Rasila Ram would not be attracted in the instant case. 12. I am aware of the legal position that the Tribunal cannot issue any direction in the matter of compassionate appointment but can only direct consideration of the request for compassionate appointment. However, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case as discussed above, I feel that ends of justice would be duly met if the OA is disposed of in the following terms: The impugned orde...

P.L. Suri, Inspector Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This OA has been made against respondents' orders dated 8.8.2005 whereby applicant has been informed that he was not found suitable for appointment to the entry grade of NCT of Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Police Service (for short DANIPS) against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2005.2. It has been stated on behalf of applicant that two departmental enquiries were initiated against him on 21.5.2002 and 25.4.2003 on the ground of lack of supervision on his subordinates. It has been contended that while the former enquiry was dropped on 28.3.2005, in the latter applicant was exonerated from the alleged charged on 13.5.2005. Applicant's name was kept in the sealed cover by the DPC due to the pending departmental enquiries against him. It has been stated that respondents have informed applicant that he was not found suitable for the said promotion both against the vacancies pertaining to the year 2004 and those per...

C.L. Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR576(Delhi); 129(2006)DLT126; 2006(88)DRJ300

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner / objector has assailed the impugned award dated 03.01.2001 on several counts. The first count is that claim Nos. 1 and 2 have been clubbed with Claim No. 3 and the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 51,500.08 under the last of these heads, i.e., Claim No. 3. Claim No. 1 pertains to the expenditure incurred by the petitioner during the period the site was not being made available to the petitioner, i.e., the period prior to the petitioner being able to commence the work as per the tender. Claim No. 2 pertains to the petitioner's alleged professional loss for making itself available for this project instead of undertaking some other projects whereby the petitioner could have made profits. Claim No. 3 is in respect of the loss of profit on account of the petitioner not being permitted to complete the work. In other words, Claim No. 3 is for the loss of profit on the balance work which the petitioner was not permitted to com...

Amar Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR253(Delhi); 2006(88)DRJ361

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 10046/1994 (Under Section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner has filed objections under the provisions of Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), in respect of the award dated 19.1.1994 of Shri Ram Bahadur, the Sole Arbitrator.2. The dispute relates to the Rate Contract dated 29.12.1988, which was valid for a period from 20.8.1988 to 15.12.1989. Clause 4 of the Rate Contract prescribe the said period while Clause 5 prescribe the period up to which the requisitions under the Contract could be placed on the petitioner, who was granted the Rate Contract by the respondent. In terms of the Clause 5 such requisition has to be placed so as to reach the Contractor on or before the last date of the currency of the Rate Contract.3. There were certain amendments in the price issued on 20.3.1990 but that would not be relevant in the present matter. The sub-stratum of the disputes relates to the commun...

Santosh Kumar JaIn Vs. Shrimandir Das JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT116

R.S. Sodhi, J1. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Civil Judge, Delhi dated 27.7.2005, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioner herein under Section 151 CPC challenging the compromise arrived between the parties on 27.3.2004 and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner to be paid to plaintiff No.1 as also to earlier counsel for defendants, Mr.R.N.Oberoi, in equal sums, that is, Rs.5000/- each. 2. Petitioner is primarily aggrieved of the costs that have been imposed on him. He submits that Plaintiff No.1 was served on the day when the arguments were heard and the order pronounced. thereforee, according to him, he is not entitled to costs. He further submits that the learned Judge went wrong in awarding cost to earlier counsel for the defendant, Mr.R.N.Oberoi, when he is not a party to the proceedings.3. Heard petitioner in person. No doubt awarding of cost is a discretion given to the Court under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Pro...

Maharaji Educational Trust and anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC108; 129(2006)DLT332; 2006(88)DRJ521

Vijender Jain, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated January 12, 2006 directing them to amend their suit within two weeks from the date of the order and in the event of failure to amend the suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed.2. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order and other related material on record carefully.3. The brief facts of the case that led to the filing of this appeal are that the appellants had filed a suit for declaration seeking a declaration to the effect, that the communication dated 22.8.2005 sent by respondent No.1 repudiating the settlement dated 23.7.2005 which took place between the parties in bank recovery matter, is illegal, void and is vitiated by fraud. The settlement is purported to had been arrived at between the parties on 23.7.2005 whereby the parties allegedly agreed to settle the account of the appellants with the resp...

Kamal Saini Vs. Narender Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT150

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, whereby the learned Judge while adjudicating upon an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 PC has held that the petitioner herein is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. D -34, situated at Abadi of D-Park, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Ilaka Shahdara, Delhi, wherein Mohan Lal is the tenant. He further submits that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are colluding with respondent No.3 and in the garb of an ex parte order get into possession of the premises, which lawfully belongs to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is a necessary party to the proceedings.3. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the order under challenge. It appears to me prima facie that when the petitioner has put up her case as the owner of the premises b...

Pasco Enterprises Vs. Air France and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Respondent No. 1/Air France Carrier carries on the business of carriage by air passengers, luggage and goods, for consideration. Respondent-3 is the agent of respondent-1. Complainant is engaged in the business of sale purchase and export of carpets. Through this complaint the complainant has sought compensation of value of the goods amounting to Rs. 7,19,114.50 booked through the O.P. and Rs. 3,45,412 for additional expenses and damages for respondents failure to deliver the same to the consignee. 2. The allegations of complainant giving rise to this complaint are as under: (i) Complainant booked 20 bales containing 71 pieces of Kashmir Handmade Handknotted Rayon carpets with respon-dent-1 through its agent respondent-3 at their Delhi office on 30.12.1992. The respondent-3 issued Airway Bill No. 057-1125 4176 dated 30.12.1992 on behalf of respondent-1 i.e., carriers and also received Rs. 56,100 as air freight charges from the complainant for such cargo. The...

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Vs. Ashok Kumar Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. In identical matter where the appellant was a party we have taken a view that no educational institution, centre or university can forfeit the amount received by it at the time of admission in case it has not provided the service for which the consideration was meant. This view was taken in, (i) Indraprastha Guru Gobind Singh University v. Deep Kumar, in Appeal No. 569/2005 dated 31.1.2006; and (ii) Indraprastha Guru Gobind Singh University v. P.L. Girdhar, in Appeal No. 570/2005. 2. In the instant case the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 15.6.2005 passed by the District Forum been directed to refund the amount of Rs. 9,000 to the respondent with interest @ 9% and pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses for having declined to refund the amount which was contrary to their own rules. 3. Admittedly an amount of Rs. 20,000 was received by the appellant towards admission of the respondent in the course of Bachelor of Physiot...