Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Ge Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Limited Vs. Kiranben Mayur ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR620(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator.2. The petitioner contended that it is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of providing financial/credit facilities in the form of auto loans, personal loans and home equity loans, etc. to its customers and that the petition has been filed by Ms. Shalini Saxena, Assistant Manager, D/o Mr. S.N. Saxena, R/o F-57, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi - 110001 who has been authorized by a power of attorney dated 5th August, 2004 to sign, verify and institute the present petition.3. The petitioner contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 applied to the petitioner for loan against immovable property and a loan of Rs. 18,50,000 along with interest @ 17% per annum was sanctioned to the respondents repayable in 120 equal monthly Installments of Rs. 32,153 each and that the first payment was due for 1st June, 2003.4. I...

Caryaire Equipments India P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR121

1. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 5,05,902/- of the appellant.The appellant applied for refund on the ground that the services of erection, commissioning or installation became taxable only w.e.f.01.07.2003.2. The appellant has, in the written submissions contended that, as per the circular issued by the CBEC Circular dated 13.05.2004, the installation and commissioning services were not covered under the heading "consulting engineering services". Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Tribunal quoted in the written submissions holding that installation and commissioning were not covered under "consulting engineering services" and that they became taxable w.e.f. 01.07.2003.3. The learned authorized representative for the department supported the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the circular dated 13.05.2004, did not stipulate that t...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kapil Prasad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR127

1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 5-2-2007, setting-aside the order-in-original by which the Assistant Commissioner absolutely confiscated 270 Kgs. of copper scrap and 635 Kgs. of aluminium scrap under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalties of Rs. 5000/- on each of these appellants.2. The Appellate Commissioner relying on a copy of invoice produced by the appellants regarding purchase of scrap from M/s. APS Organization, Kolkata, who had admitted of having entered the said deal with the appellants held that, there was nothing on record to prove the allegation of the department that the seized goods were of foreign origin. It was observed that there must be some kind of mark of foreign origin or any other specific evidence in order to form a belief about the contraband nature of the aforesaid goods. It was also observed that the burden of proof remained on the department because the goods ...

Shri O.P. Singh S/O Shri Inder Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Initially, the applicant was appointed as Ticket Collector. He had been promoted as Traveling Ticket Examiner, in the year 1990. The next relevant incident to be noticed is that four charges had been incorporated in the charge-sheet issued to the applicant, on 04.07.1994, namely, that he had allowed and collected money from decoy passengers without issuing tickets, that he had not declared his private cash at the commencement of duty, that he had been possessing a substantial amount with him in excess of the Railway cash carried by him at the time of his duty and the vigilance team had found passengers without proper tickets, in the coach under his charge, and a substantial amount was collected towards railway dues by the vigilance team (which otherwise would have lost to the Railways). All this constituted misconduct and as such actionable, and he was ascertained of his stand vis-`-vis the charge. He had denied the charges.2. Duly after inquiry, penalty of dismissal was ordered in...

Shri Janeshwar Prasad S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Two applicants had joined together to file this O.A. in view of the circumstances that they have similar grievances, presented for examination. The prayer in the application is for directing the respondents, General Manager, Northern Railway, to consider the case of the applicants for appointment either in skilled category of Fitter or even against Group `D' post, in a similar manner as has been done in case of certain other Act Apprentices, who had been accommodated also, if necessary, by giving age relaxation.2. Applicants referred to Annexure A-2, which were offers given by the Divisional Railway Manager, to them for undertaking the training of Apprentices under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. It was stated that this was for a period of one year and they were to commence training on or before 11.11.1994. They claim that apprenticeship was satisfactorily completed.3. The applicants submit that they had undergone the training of Apprentices after they had passed I.T.I. of Fitter Gra...

Sarbjyot Kaur Saluja and ors. Vs. Rajender Singh Saluja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT650

Anil Kumar, J. IA No. 3544/20071. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant states that another application under Order 6 Rule 17 has also been filed by the plaintiff and consequently she does not press the present application. Dismissed as not pressed.IA No. 12297/20071. This is an application by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiffs/applicants contend that they have filed a suit for permanent injunction and maintenance against the defendants under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.3. According to the plaintiffs the defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement and has categorically admitted his obligation to maintain the plaintiffs and has conceded his liability to pay the maintenance to the plaintiffs. It is also disclosed that the defendant No. 1 in order to establish his alleged bonafides has stated that he is paying Rs.20,000/- per month to the plaintiff towards maint...

Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Umesh Goel and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR353(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The salient facts of the litigation are that the contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause. This was invoked by Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (Appellant) followed by its Statement of Claims dated 26.6.2003. The Respondent thereafter filed its Reply and Counter Claim dated 30.8.2003. Whilst there appears to be legal impediment to an unregistered partnership firm, such as the Respondents, defending any legal action brought against it, there seems to be some controversy on its capacity to file its own claim in arbitral proceedings. We must not forget that a Counter-Claim can be treated by the Court as a plaint in a cross-suit (See Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala : [1964]2SCR567 ). The Learned Single Judge has found that at the relevant time the Respondent was an unregistered firm. Thus, if the filing of a suit by an unregistered firm is barred, equally and logically a counter claim would not be ma...

Mohd. Shamim Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ491

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM Nos. 14514-14515/2007 in LPA No. 1297/2007 (exemption)CM No. 14855 in LPA No. 1311/2007 (exemption)CM Nos. 14857-58/2007 in LPA No. 1312/2007 (exemption)CM Nos. 14872-73/2007 in LPA No. 1314/2007 (exemption)Allowed, subject to just exceptions.1. LPA.1297/2007 and CM No. 14513/2007, 14516/2007 (delay)(stay)2. LPA 1311/2007 and CM Nos.14853/2007,14854/2007 (delay)(stay)3. LPA 1312/2007 and CM Nos. 14856/2007,14859/2007 (delay)(stay)4. LPA 1314/2007 and CM Nos. 14871/2007,14874/2007 (delay)(stay)1. All these appeals involve similar issues of fact and law and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment and order.2. These appeals are filed by the appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st August, 2004.3. We have perused the copy of the said order, which is placed on record by the appellants herein. By the aforesaid order, a number of writ petitions were decided by the learn...

U.G. Sugar and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(126)ECC75

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes, plates, Shapers, Shafts and packing material was denied.2. I find that the issue in respect of Welding Electrodes is settled in the following decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, namely Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE Raipur these decisions, denial of credit in respect of welding electrodes is upheld.3. In respect of Packing material, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of BP sugar and molasses and this packing material is used to prevent leakage in the pipes. I find that in the impugned order, the fact that packing material is used as mechanical seals for not getting the heat, liquid etc being out flown is admitted.In these circumstances, denial of credit is not sustainable.4. The credit in respect of shaft is denied as the same is classified under heading 73.26 of the Tariff which is not included in the scope of the capital goods. I f...

Ram Phal, Security Guard Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. For the reasons mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application, we recall order dated 24.9.2007. OA is restored to its original number.3. Shri Ram Phal, the applicant herein who superannuated on 30.9.2005 has filed the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to admit his entitlement as Assistant Security Officer and make the payment to him of all pensionary benefits assuming that he retired on the promoted post of Assistant Security Officer.4. The facts as projected in the Application reveal that the applicant was appointed as Security Guard-A on 7.11.1973. It is his case that his promotion was due in the year 1976 but he was not promoted to the post of Security Guard-B and continued to remain in Grade-A even though he was regularized as Security Guard-A w.e.f. 26.3.1980 and confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 1.1.1980. Consequent upon the merger of pay scales of the Group-D (Admn.) employees of ISRO as per De...