Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

international Building and Furnishing Company (Cal) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(2)CTLJ287(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Taking note of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 26.2.1996, following issues were framed:1. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a person duly authorized? OPP2. Whether the plaintiff manufactured and supplied items of furniture to the value of Rs. 1,13,019/- to the defendant after approval? OPP3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff for the various items of furniture of the value of Rs. 11,23,414/- claim to have been manufactured and lying in the workshop of the plaintiff? OPP4. Whether the rescission of the contract by the plaintiff was justified? OPP5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- or any other amount on account of loss of profit as averred in para 17 of the plaint? OPP6. Whether the plaintiff only supplied goods to the defendant as free samples which were returned after rescission of the contract as averred in the written statement? OPD.7. To what amount, if any, th...

Mrs. Saroj Priyadarshani and ors. Vs. Sh. Ranbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT308

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 19.11.2002 against five defendants in respect of land measuring one bigha eight bids was situated in Revenue Estate of Village Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi. The land was stated to have been purchased by the respondent vide a registered sale deed from original defendants No. 2 to 5 who were the sons and daughters of Sh. Bhagat Ram. Respondent claimed to be in possession of the land of which mutation had been done in the revenue record. The respondent claimed that a small boundary wall was constructed by him as was permissible under the Delhi Land Reforms Act when original defendant No. 1 started claiming rights in the land forming part of the khasra No. 195/2 measuring one bigha on the basis of some forged and fabricated documents. Since attempt was made by original defendant No. 1 to dispossess the respondent on 18.11.1992 a suit for declaration and injunction was filed in order to establish the...

Revanjali Furnishers (P) Ltd. Vs. Association of Corpn. and Apex Socie ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR387(Delhi); 132(2006)DLT583

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Petition has been filed under Section 11 read with Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity the Act). The Applicant had entered into a contract with the Respondents for the interior decoration of Handloom Pavilion, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, over five years back. Disputes had arisen which were being adjudicated under the Sole Arbitration of Shri R.C.M. Reddy appointed by the Respondent. It transpires that the proceedings scheduled for 7.1.2003 were adjourned by the said Sole Arbitrator on the grounds that the parties were trying to settle the matter amicably. Thereafter, no further proceedings were held by the Sole Arbitrator. This necessitated the filing of Arbitration Petition No. 231/2005 which was allowed by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. in terms of Orders dated 23.1.2006. The Respondents appointed Shri Sanjit K. Samal, Joint DGFT as the Sole Arbitrator. However, he declined to act in the matter, as intimated by him in his letter dat...

Shri Ram Singh Batra Vs. Smt. Sharan Premi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT126

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC states as under:1. That the plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000/- only on account of damages. In the said suit he has made scurrilous insinuation, malicious and vexatious allegations which have no iota of truth.2. That the matter is sub-judice in the court of MM, New Delhi in which charge sheet for one FCNR account has already been filed which was investigated by the Crime Branch for the offence under Section 420/467/468/471 r/w Section 120-B IPC.3. That the plaintiff has not come with clean hands. The suit is false, the defendant has reasonable and probable cause for filing of the FIR because huge amounts have been mis-appropriated by the plaintiff in connivance with others for which the investigation is being carried out by the CBI.4. That a written statement to the said case has been filed by the defendant. She relies upon the averments made in the written statement which clearly...

Hindustan National Glass and Industries anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT454; 2006(92)DRJ697; 2008(228)ELT334(Del); 2009[16]STR527

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition filed in 1986 initially challenged two show cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rohtak. By the first show cause notice dated 4.3.1986, the petitioner, which is a company engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware falling under tariff item 23-A (5) of the Central Excise Tariff, was asked to show cause as to why the prices charged by the petitioner for the soft drink bottles to their ultimate customers should be not taken as the assessable value and consequently why sum of Rs. 31.73 lakh should not be recovered as differential excise duty on the clearance of soft drink bottles for the period 1.9.1985 to 28.2.1986. The second show cause notice dated 5.9.1986 pertained to the period 1.3.1986 to 3.8.1986 and the differential excise duty sought to be recovered there under was in the sum of Rs. 21.22 lakh.2. The petitioner's case in the writ petition was that the respondents were seeking to levy excise duty on printed ...

Rahul JaIn and anr. Vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT329; 2007(94)DRJ89

Gita Mittal, J.1. This application raises an interesting issue on first principles of adjudication on a application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The question raised relates to the maintainability of an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. One of two applicants who have sought leave to sue a trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 expired. Thus, the moot which requires to be answered is whether the two persons who have submitted the application have to be alive and in existence on the date when the petition is filed or whether the relevant date of their existence is the date on which the application is actually taken up for consideration by the court.2. The facts which give rise to the present petition to the extent necessary for adjudication of the present petition are noticed hereafter. Shri Rahul Jain and Shri Surender Kumar filed an application being is No. 9572/1999 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Pro...

Sabar International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. We find that the appeal itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, we grant waiver of requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to deal with the appeal.3. The dispute is as to whether the consignment cleared by the appellant under Bill of Entry No. 251, dated 13-4-2004 was required to be classified under Heading 090930 as 'Cumin' or under Heading 090940 as 'Caraway' (with exemption under Notification No. 73/2003-Cus., dated 13-5-2003).4. The goods in question were Cumin according to the invoice and transit certificate and other connected documents. It is seen that Heading 090939 of the Customs Tariff is specific for cumin, while 090940 is for Caraway seeds. Exemption under Notification No. 76/2003, dated 13-5-2003 (S1. No. 17) was only for Caraway seeds and not for cumin. In this position of Tariff classification and exemption, clearly, the consignment was not eligible for classification as Caraway seeds.5. However, the finding that there was misdeclaration of goods, which rendered them ...

M.P. Glychem Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC131

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 20th August, 2004 which upheld the demand and penalty imposed by order in original.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant is manufacturer of Refined Soya Oil and discharge the duty liability on the same. During the course of manufacturing of the Refined Soya Oil De-oiled cake emerges as a by product. Appellant clear this De-oiled cake (by product) without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant directing them to reverse the modvat credit availed on the inputs which are used for the manufacturing of De-oiled cake. The appellant resisted the show cause notice on the ground that the emergence of De-oiled cake is a technical necessity and hence there is no requirement for reversing the modvat credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also up held the same.3. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides a...

Verma Cables Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC513

2. The dispute is in regard to the value of service in the case of Cable operators. The submission is that the appellant was paying service tax in regard to the amount actually collected. The differential tax demand remains made on the basis of "further enquiries" which showed that the appellant was actually collecting higher amount towards service. The enquiry result was not made available to the appellant before adjudicating the case. The same is not on record also.3. Prima facie, there is merit in the appellants contention.Accordingly, requirement for pro-deposit is waived and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The stay petition is disposed of accordingly....

Gujrat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. the Mrtp Commission and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]134CompCas482(Delhi); [2006]72SCL363(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the orders dated 9.1.2004 and 13.12.2004 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Commission, New Delhi (hereafter 'MRTP Commission') in RTPE No. 21 of 2001. By the first impugned order dated 9.1.2004 the MRTP Commission rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Act) read with Regulation 65 of the MRTP Regulations (hereafter 'Regulations') challenging the admissibility of the affidavit of evidence filed on behalf of the complainants in RTPE No. 21of 2001. By the second impugned order dated 13.12.2004 the MRTP Commission ordered that the admissibility and evidentiary value of a certain document referred to in the cross-examination of the complainant's witness, would be considered at the time of the final hearing, in light of the answers given by the witness during the cross- examination. Apart from challenging these two orders, the petition...