Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT677

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner was the owner of land ad-measuring 16 bighas 4 biswas, situated in Village Dallupura, Delhi which came to be acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 10.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898(`Act'), a declaration dated 20.6.1966 under Section 6 of the Act followed by an Award No. 2052-E/71-72/Suppl. dated 30.12.1967.2. The Land Acquisition Collector(`LAC') had fixed the compensation at Rs. 500/- per bigha. Pursuant to the reference petitions under Section 18, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi (`ADJ') by a judgment dated 7.1.1994 enhanced the compensation to Rs.8054/- per bigha following the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 128 of 1982 (Om Prakash v. Union of India).3. The petitioner did not file an application under Section 18. However, the petitioner claims to have submitted a petition on 9.3.1994 under Section 28A of the Act to the LAC for the award of the enhanced compensation in terms of the said order dated 7.1.19...

Puri International (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ram Lal Bansiwal and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC126

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a dishonoured cheque dated 20.3.2002 which was for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Indian Oversees Bank. In the complaint filed by the complainant, it is alleged that when the cheque was dishonoured, a legal notice dated 31.5.2002 was sent by the Registered AD/UPC by the complainant through their Counsel to the accused persons/petitioners herein, calling upon them to make payment within 15 days after receipt of this notice. The petitioners herein after receiving the summons in the said case moved application for their discharge which has been dismissed by the learned M.M. and the present petition is filed challenging the summoning order/quashing of the complaint.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after the dishonour of the cheque, respondent had served notice dated 29.4.2002 intimating about the dishonour of the said cheque and calling up...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Schlumberger Asia Services Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR610(Delhi); 2006(91)DRJ370

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. When I use a word Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I chose it to mean nothing more nor less Lewis Carrol: Through the Looking Glass.2. To assimilate the way in which documents are interpreted by applying common sense principles to interpret serious utterances as would be understood in ordinary life is a fairly complex process, though at first blush any person would say, after all, language is a means of communication; language evolved thousands of years ago; surely, humankind must have perfected the art of communication and thereforee where is the difficulty in understanding what parties meant by their utterances.3. But since the word ambiguity is itself not precise and itself is flexible, removing ambiguity in words, to clarify the meaning, becomes a fairly complex task. Ambiguity may arise from doubts as to the meaning of a word used in totality of the ordinary well understood meaning. It may arise from the diversity of subject...

Cst Vs. V.S. Infrastructure Capital Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT485

2. The Revenue filed this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the evidence on record held that incidence of Service Tax was not passed on to the Mutual Funds and the Service Tax was paid by the present respondent out of the consideration received from Mutual Funds in the form of commission and no Service Tax has been charges by the respondent from the Mutual Funds over and above the commission paid by the Mutual Funds. In these circumstances, we find no ground for stay of the operation of the impugned order. However, Registry is directed to list the appeal for regular hearing in the week starting from 25-9-2006....

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC288

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 25.08.2004 upholding the order dated 11.12.2003 made by the Assistant Commissioner holding that interest cannot be granted on the refund amount of the pre-deposit and further that it could not be granted also because the refund was sanctioned within the stipulated time of three months.2. It appears that the appellant had made a refund application on 30.6.2003 for refund of the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 4,30,000/-. The said amount was deposited on 15.10.1994 as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the direction of the Tribunal in the context of the hearing of the appeal which involved the question whether excise duty was payable on 'Caisson Gate'. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal by its order dated 14.5.2003 [reported in 2003 (156) ELT 56 (Tri. Del)] and the assessee became entitled to the refund of the pre-deposit amount. The said application dated 30.6.2003 was, t...

Cce Vs. Agrawal Exports

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 06/07/04 wherein learned Commissioner (Appeal) has set aside the order in original that rejected the refund claim of the respondent.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice. Since the matter is pending from 2004, I take up the same for disposal in the absence of respondent.3. Considered the submissions made at length by the learned DR and perused records. I find that the refund claim of the respondent was rejected by the adjudicating authority but was sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeal) in an appeal. While granting the amount of refund, the adjudicating authority has denied the respondent interest payable on such refund. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) while allowing the interest to the respondent has held as under: 4. On a careful consideration of the written and oral submissions made by the Appellants. I find the dispute in the present Appeals relates to the interest payable on delayed payment of refun...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Himachal Futuristic

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 7-7-2004 which set aside the order in original that rejected the refund claim of the respondent.2. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused records. I find from the records that the refund claim has arisen due to the reason that the appellants were required to clear their final products to their purchaser at a fixed price inclusive of all duties, freight and insurance. While entering into the contract, there was an error of charging the excise duty @ 13% in the all inclusive price, while the excise duty payable was @ 16%. The appellants filed the refund claim on the ground that all inclusive price as contracted by them was considering a lower rate of excise duty and hence the assessable value on which they have paid the excise duty at the prevailing rate is not correct and on recalculation, it was found less.Based on this facts, the refund claim was filed. The adjudicating authority rejected the same. ...

Cce Vs. Optel Telecommunication Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC148

1. These appeals are filed against order in appeal dated 21/06/04 which set aside the order in original rejecting the refund claims.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent is a regular supplier of optical fiber cables to DoT and Bharti Telenet under specific contracts. In the contract with their buyers, there is price variation clause whereby the final prices of the excisable goods supplied by the respondent are finalized after specific period of term depending upon the factors of rise or fall of the price of base metals.Hence by virtue of the price variation clause, the appellant is either paying a differential duty or claiming the refund from the revenue for the excess duty paid by him. In these cases, the respondent filed refund claims to the proper officer based on the reduction in the final price of products which was rejected by the adjudicating authority. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the order in original and allowed the refund ...

Shri Sukh Ram S/O Shri Lekh Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order of the Respondents in terms of which the pension of the applicant has been reduced, directing the respondents to restore the pension of the applicant and give arrears also with interest.2. It is stated by the applicant that he joined the Railway as Substitute (casual Gangman) in 1963 and retired on 29.2.1996. He was not given any retiral benefits. Therefore, he had earlier filed OA 2232/1996 which was rejected. Being aggrieved he filed C.W.P. No.6846/1999 which was allowed by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 23.9.2003. Thereafter applicant was informed vide order dated 6.10.2003 that pensionary benefits under the extant rules have been sanctioned in favour of applicant. Accordingly he was called upon to fill up settlement form. Applicant executed the necessary pension form and respondents paid all the arrears of pension to the applicant through the Canara Bank and even ...

Dal Chand S/O Sh. Mool Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Respondents have filed their short reply in the Court today, which is taken on record. Heard the counsel and perused the pleadings.2. By present OA, applicant claims over-time allowance for the period from May, 1984 to June, 1987. He has also preferred MA 708/2006 seeking condonation of delay stating that he holds only basic qualification and did not have proper knowledge about the place of filing petition etc.It is contended that he had filed cases before District Court twice and the same were dismissed as withdrawn due to lack of jurisdiction.3. On perusal of memorandum dated 07.6.2000 issued by respondents i.e.CPWD, copy of which is available at page-11 of paper-book, I find that applicant had preferred a suit in 1996, which was dismissed by the Learned Civil Judge in the year 1998 holding that he had no jurisdiction over the matter. Said memorandum further states that despite such facts, he preferred the same claim once again in 1999.3. Ignorance of law is not an excuse, is wel...