Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

i.T.C. Limited Vs. Pradeep Anand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR67(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The parties to the present dispute sought to co-operate amongst themselves for furtherance of their business interest and entered into a Co-operation Agreement dated 11.09.1990. Instead of there being any co-operation, the Agreement resulted in serious disputes between the parties, which gave rise to the arbitral proceedings as also the present proceedings. The substratum of the dispute is the rights and obligations, if any, which came into existence in pursuance of this Co-operation Agreement as also the very legality and validity of the said Agreement.2. The Co-operation Agreement dated 11.09.1990 contains an arbitration clause in Article 12(b) providing for settlement of disputes under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short, ICC) with the arbitration to be held at Bombay, India. The clause reads as under:Article 12 : General Provisions(a)...(b) Any unresolved dispute arising in connection with this Agree...

Mmtc Limited Vs. Sineximco Pte Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR12(Delhi); 2006(90)DRJ638

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of marketing, inter alias of Chrome Ore quarried by Orissa Mining Corporation, Bhubaneshwar. The respondent is engaged in the business of import and export in international market and negotiated with the petitioner from time to time to purchase Chrome Ore. A contract was thus executed between the parties on 05.09.1995. The contract was for purchase of two different qualities of triable Chrome Ore to be supplied by the Orissa Mining Corporation of 5,000 tonnes each. The two grades of Chrome were 50/48 per cent and 46/44 per cent at a price of USD 205 and USD 155 respectively per dry metric tone. 2. In pursuance of the contract, an advance of USD 2,67,000 was paid by the respondent to the petitioner. On the same date of 05.09.1995, another contract was also entered into between the parties and the respondent claims to have deposited a total sum of USD 5,47,500 including the aforesaid amount of advance of USD ...

Rbef (Ritnand Balved Education Foundation) Vs. Mr. Alok Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi9; 131(2006)DLT563; 2006(90)DRJ714

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for damages of Rs.1 crore and permanent injunction. The damages have been sought on account of the alleged damage said to have been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff by the defendant's false and malicious statements, as also on account of losses allegedly caused to the plaintiff by the acts of the defendant in supplying confidential and privileged information/documents to certain parties which has resulted, according to the plaintiff, in filing of frivolous cases against the plaintiff and also in the attaching of its accounts and orders of injunction against its properties. The relief of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff has been sought for restraining the defendant, his agents, accomplices, attorneys, etc. from making any oral or written statement, writing any letter, giving any interview containing any allegations against the Plaintiff, its AMITY Institutions, its founder President, founder Trustee and office bearers, furni...

Explore Computers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cals Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC441; 2006(2)CTLJ12(Del); 131(2006)DLT477; 2006(90)DRJ480

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of sales and purchase of computers and network products. The defendant No. 1 is a limited company dealing in supplying computers and network products.2. The plaintiff approached defendant No. 1 with a request for supply of computers and placed an order dated 02.07.1996 for supply of 33 computers of Pentium 100 with Intel CPU at the rate of Rs 45,662 for each computer totalling to a value of Rs 15,06,850/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 10 lakhs as advance towards the execution of the said order with the condition that defendant No. 1 would secure the said amount by way of a bank guarantee. The purchase order was signed both by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 incorporating the terms and conditions between the parties.3. In view of the arrangement arrived at between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 requested ...

Citizens for Justice Vs. Lt. Governor (Nct) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT649

S.N. Aggarwal, J1. The petitioner-Society has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the respondents restraining them from giving effect to the letter of the Senior Architect (respondent No. 4) dated 15.5.2006 creating 64 locations for hawkers space (beach umbrella type) of size 1.0mt x 1.8mt at District Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi.2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents themselves have declared the District Centre, Nehru Place, as zero tolerance zone and, thereforee, they cannot allow the hawkers to encroach the said area under the garb of sites created for them vide impugned letter of their Senior Architect referred to above. We find no force in this contention. The location for hawkers have been created by the respondents not on any area belonging to the shop owners at District Centre, Nehru Place, but on public land with which they have no direct connection. Furthermore, there is no conflict between a no tolerance zone ...

NitIn Nagpal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ745

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner seeks release on bail under Section 167(2) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The petitioner's case is that the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period of 90 days and, as such, he became entitled to bail-on-default which has been denied to him by the Courts below. It is also the petitioner's case that cognizance was not taken within the said period of 90 days and, thereforee, his detention in custody was illegal and that the taking of cognizance on a subsequent date beyond the period of 90 days, would not cure this illegality. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the State were: 1) that investigation had, in fact, been completed and the police report had been filed within the period of 90 days and, thereforee, the proviso to Section 167(2) would not come into play and the petitioner would not be entitled to bail-on-default; 2) that cognizance was s...

Sajjan Kumar Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT18; 2006(90)DRJ420

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Code') for grant of anticipatory bail. The main issue involved in this application is whether the petitioner would be entitled to invoke Section 438 of the Code in view of the provisions of Section 18 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC&ST; Act'). The allegation against the petitioner, inter alia, is that he used the words: 'Tu Chura Hamare Khilaf Ladne Ki Himmat Karega' against the complainant, who is admittedly a member of a Scheduled Caste. Based on this allegation and other allegations, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi passed a summoning order on 24.08.2005 against all the accused, including the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 325/34 IPC and the petitioner has been additionally summoned for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x)...

Radhika Steels Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant imported a consignment of Porcelain Ware (Vase, bowl, lion, flower pot etc.) valued at US$ 3300 from China and filed Bill of Entry at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi for its clearance. Without assigning any reason, the Customs authorities doubled the value of the consignment and assessed it to custom duty. Appellant cleared the consignment after payment of duty at the enhanced value and thereafter challenged the order of enhancement before the Commissioner (Appeals).The Commissioner upheld the order of enhancement with the observation that "having once accepted the loaded value of the goods voluntarily and having paid duty accordingly thereon without any protest or objection, they are legally estopped from taking 'U' turn and to deny the correctness of the same". The present appeal is directed against that order of appellant.2. The contention of the appellant is that it was never put to notice that the customs authorities were rejecting the purchase price or that they wer...

Cit Vs. Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)149

T.S. Thakur, J.Tribunal has, in all these cases, either deleted or affirmed the deletion of penalty levied upon the assessed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has, while doing so, relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) and held that the authority initiating the penalty had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessed. The revenue has assailed the correctness of the said orders in these appeals.2. Learned counsel for the revenue advanced a two-fold submission in support of these appeals. Firstly it was contended that the issue of a notice proposing to initiate penalty proceedings against the assessed was in itself indicative of the satisfaction of the authority initiating the proceedings regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Alternatively, it was submi...