Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Toepfer International Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR499(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.EA No. 332/20071. The subject matter of dispute between the parties are six contracts entered into between 22.09.2003 and 28.10.2003 whereby the judgment debtor had to supply to the decree holder of various quantities of Indian Toasted Soya Bean Extract in FAQ - Yellow Flakes. The contracts provided for prices between USD 200 to USD 256 per metric ton and the shipment period was from 15.11.2003 to 15.01.20042. The judgment debtor performed only part of the obligations and failed to deliver the balance quantity. In this behalf, the first relevant document is dated 15.03.2004, being a fax message of the judgment debtor stating that all the suppliers, with whom they had contracted, had defaulted in supplies and that they were seeking to sort out the problem and thus requested for extension of time. On the same fax message is an endorsement made on 18.03.2004 to the effect that all the suppliers had backed out on account of abnormal spurt in prices and that the judgme...

Mr. Rama Shankar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ171; AIR2008Delhi87; 2007(99)DRJ624

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.04.06 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dismissing the claim application of the appellant.2. Appellant had filed a claim application under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a train accident.3. It was averred in the claim application that on 22.3.00 at about 2.15 p.m. the appellant had boarded Sachkhand Express from platform No. 6, New Delhi Railway Station, Delhi for a journey from New Delhi to Panipat. That the appellant was washing his face at the wash basin near the gate of the compartment when the train halted at Sadar Bazaar Railway Station at Delhi and he was in the process of washing his face the train suddenly started with a jolt as a result of which he accidentally fell from the train on the track. That because of the fall, the appellant sustained injuries and was removed to Ram Manoh...

Baba Motors Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR505

1. The appellant is engaged in the business of service tax category "Authorized Service Station" and is liable to pay service tax during the period 2001-04. The appellants did not get themselves registered and did not pay service tax. During the course of investigations, the appellant revealed that they had provided services against free service coupons provided by M/s Bajaj Auto Limited and have collected/received the amount from M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. The total amount disclosed by the appellant for the period 16.7.01 to 31.3.04 was to the tune of Rs. 4,65,290/- involving service tax of Rs. 28,322/-. The said amount was subsequently paid by the appellant along with interest of Rs. 5,275 vide TR-6 challan dated 29.4.04. They also get themselves registered with the Central Excise Department.2. However, the revenue also made enquiries from M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune in respect of free service coupons. It was revealed that the amount credited to the appellant by M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. on accoun...

J.S.P. Security Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)14STT316

1. As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in providing services as security agency services from Sept 2000 onwards and paying the service tax accordingly. However, as a result of audit carried out by Central Excise Officers, it was found that during the period 2000-01 to 2002-03, the appellant has short paid the service tax of Rs. 1,67,896/-. The said short payment of service tax was detected after checking I.T. returns and bank statements for the relevant period. The total value of the services provided by the appellant was found to be on the lower side than the return filed by them with the Central Excise department. The appellant admitted the above mistake and deposited the amount along with interest. On proceedings being initiated against them, an equal amount of personal penalty was imposed upon them, which is under challenge.2. It is appellant's contention that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax and the appellant themselves detected the mistake and depo...

Cce Vs. Naaz Travels Agency

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR507

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. I have heard Shri A.K.Rastogi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Z.U. Alvi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.2. The appellate authority has dropped the demand of service tax confirmed against the respondent on the ground that during the relevant period 2002-2003, the respondent M/s Naaz Travels Agency, which is a partnership concern, was not even in existence. The same came into existence as a partnership concern on 7.9.04 with three partners namely Mrs. Memuna Sultan, Mrs. Farzana Khan and Mr. M. Azam Khan. As such, he has concluded that during the period 2002-03, Mrs. Memuna Sultan in her individual capacity has provided the service of a car to BHEL. In as much as the notice stands issued to M/s Naaz Travels Agency and not to Mrs. Menuna Sultan, acting in her individual capacity, the demand cannot be confirmed. It is the Revenue's contention ...

Sh. Pramod Kumar Sheel S/O Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., the applicant has impugned the orders dated 31.05.2006 (Annexure/A-1) and 27.04.2006 (Annexure/A-2) alleging that the same are unconstitutional and arbitrary, being in total violation of Articles 14, 16 and 31(2) of the Constitution as well as punitive in character under the garb of orders simplicitor passed under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The applicant was appointed as Nursing Attendant in Safdarjung Hospital by the respondents vide order dated 25.06.2002 (Annexure/A-4) for a period of three months from 06.05.2002 to 31.07.2002 and his engagement was termed as selection on merit, along with other incumbents. He was assigned temporary status with all its consequential benefits in terms of the DoP&T instructions dated 24.10.1997 vide order dated 27.06.2003 (Annexure/A-5) along with 41 other incumbents who had satisfactorily completed 240 days in their service as Nursing Attendant. In the said order, it has been shown that the applicant h...

Sh. Jagatjit Jaiswal and anr. Vs. Karmajit Singh Jaiswal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR300(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT404; 2007(99)DRJ641

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter), the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before me that needs to be determined is, whether Clause 9 of a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS) dated 3.3.2000 entered into between the parties tantamount to an arbitration agreement. If it contains an Arbitration Agreement, as contended by the petitioners, the present petition would be maintainable, but if it does not contain an Arbitration Agreement as argued by the Respondents, the present petition would fail as not being maintainable.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition insofar as they are necessary to determine the preliminary issue may be noted. The Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 are brothers and the sons of Late Mr. L.P. Jaiswal. Further, Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 are the wives of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 respectively.3. Late Mr. L.P. Jai...

Shri Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Barnes Investments Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ629

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The execution petition has been filed by the three decree holders in Ex. P. No. 135/1992 [defendants in CS(OS) 138/1995] seeking enforcement of the decree dated 29.11.1990 against judgment debtor No. 1 [plaintiff in CS(OS) 138/1995] for U.S. Dollars 1,248,415.49, equivalent to Rs. 3,609,821.01 along with interest @15% P.A. from the date of the decree. The decree has been passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Division Bench, Commercial Court, in England 1988 Folio No. 1090. The plaintiff filed objections to the execution of the decree. The plaintiff also filed a suit, bearing CS(OS) 138/1995 for declaration and permanent injunction against the enforcement of the said decree.2. The brief facts relating to the controversy are being set out hereinunder. The plaintiff is the founding chairman of the United Group of Companies. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 are the foreign companies stated to be managed by defendant No. 2 or his family members. It is in the year 1982...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagson International Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)227

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 31st May, 2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'D' Delhi in ITA Nos. 1690 to 1693/Del/2004 relevant for the asst. yrs. 1996-97 to 1999-2000.2. The assessed had purchased a vessel called a 'Deep Sea Matdrill', which is a shipping vessel with a drilling rig installed on it. This purchase was made by the assessed on 18th March, 1993.3. In the asst. yr. 1994-95, an issue came up for consideration whether the vessel was a ship or not. In the assessment order passed for that year, the AO took the view, after discussing the matter with a representative of the assessed, that the vessel in question was a ship and, thereforee, he allowed 20 per cent depreciation claimed by the assessed. It was noted by the AO that the vessel was actually a barge with a drilling rig installed on it. It was mobile and could be used for offshore drilling. It was, thereforee, held that the assessed was entitled to claim a deduct...

Sh. Jagdish Prasad Paliwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2828; AIR2008Delhi90

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the directions issued in the order dated 28-4-2006 requiring appellant to pay interest to the insurance company on the principal sum which was required to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants-2. Attender, died an untimely death at a road accident. His mother, wife and minor sons claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellant was the owner of the vehicle in question. It was insured with National Insurance Company. The appellant, the driver of the vehicle and the insurance company were imp leaded as respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in the claim petition.3. Appellant was served in the claim petition. He engaged a lawyer. He claims that his lawyer cheated him by pocketing the fee and not appearing before the Tribunal as also not informing the appellant as to what was happening before the Tribunal.4. The insurance company took a defense that it was entitled to avoid the policy for the reason it was a term of th...