Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Madhucon Projects Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR227(Delhi); 140(2007)DLT654

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as A and C Act) praying for the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes that have arisen between the parties arising out of an Agreement dated 21.6.2000 which contains an Arbitration Clause. It inter alias contemplates that disputes pertaining to 'any notified claim of the contract included in its Final Bill' shall be referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator selected by the Contractor from a panel of three persons nominated by the General Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL for brevity). Although the Petition has been strenuously contested, in its Reply to the Petition the Respondent/IOCL has already mentioned the names of three persons for selection as the Sole Arbitrator. 2. Mr. Kaura, learned Counsel for the IOCL has resisted the reference to arbitration on the ground that it was imperative for the Petitioner to ha...

Sobhag NaraIn Mathur Vs. Pragya Agrawal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT356; 2007(96)DRJ513

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking a decree of specific performance in respect of, what is claimed to be, an agreement to sell, entered into with the defendant nos. 1 & 2, as contained in the 'Bayana Receipt' dated 7.12.2006.2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a businessman settled in Rajasthan. He was interested in purchase of commercial property in Delhi to expand his business. He arrived in Delhi to look for suitable commercial property. Through one property dealer, Mr. S. P. Gupta, he came into contact with defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2 and is the agreement purchaser of commercial plots bearing No. A, B, C & D, Local Shopping Centre, Madangir, Delhi (the suit property). Defendant No. 1 is the de facto owner of the suit property and had the legal authority to deal with the same on the basis of the said documents.3. The plaintiff contends that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for...

Anuj Kumar Bhati Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ103

J.P. Singh, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Quiz Show 'Kaun Banega Crorepati-2 (KBC)'. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that after filing of the present Petition the Respondent No. 3 i.e., Star India Private Limited had stopped the show midway but then restarted the same as 'KBC-3' and had prayed for stay of its telecast. Initially the Writ Petition was filed for claiming refund of the amount incurred by the Petitioner in his attempts to participate in the quiz, but later on he dropped this claim and pressed the Petition on other grounds in public interest. 2. The sum and substance of the allegations is that Respondent No. 3 and 4 have duped the participants of crores of rupees and are indulging in foul play and are selecting desirable persons to finally contest the show and win the cash or kind prizes. It is pleaded that this malpractice had been highlighted in the news channel of India TV on 26.6.2006 whi...

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Som Sudha Prakashan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2007)BC517

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The appellant herein had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 12,96,779/- against the respondent herein. The suit was filed in February, 1998. However, later on due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the lower Court, the suit was transferred to the District Judge. Issues were framed by the learned ADJ, to whom the case was assigned, on 17.5.2004. As the plaintiff did not lead evidence thereafter in spite of various opportunities, on 24.2.2006 the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. The Counsel for the defendant stated that he also did not intend to lead any evidence as the plaintiff had failed to give evidence in support of its case. The matter was directed to be fixed for arguments on 4.3.2006. On that date, the appellant herein filed the application for recalling of the order dated 24.2.2006 whereby its evidence was closed. This application of the appellant was dismissed and the learned Trial Court pronounced the judgment. Vide impugned judgment and decree d...

Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Dharam Pratishthanam

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]299ITR462(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated October 8, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in I.T.A. No. 1731/ Del/1996 relevant for the assessment year 1981-82.2. It will be noticed immediately that the controversy in this case has been pending for the last 25 years. The matter had gone up to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on three occasions and it is only after the third decision rendered by the Tribunal that the matter has come up before us under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. In the original assessment order, the Assessing Officer found in favor of the assessed that it was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. There was some controversy with regard to expenses said to have been incurred by the assessed being hotel expenses, mess expenses and tents amounting to Rs. 90 lakhs in respect of a vedic science conference, which appears to have gore on for about 4 to 6 months in which more than 4,000 delegates had ...

State Bank of India Vs. Usha Vaid (Dr.) and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. In December 2002, a joint loan application was submitted by respondents for loan of Rs. 23,76,913. Before release of the loan they were asked to sign blank forms and applications. Where after the loan was released in the shape of three drafts and handed over to Standard Chartered Bank. Since the bank was charging much less interest from the new consumer but did not give this benefit to the respondents though her case was falling in the floating rate of interest category and since ICICI Bank was charging lesser rate of interest, the respondent got transferred the loan to ICICI Bank. Appellant bank issued an advertisement to the effect that they were passing low rate of interest to housing loan customers with no pre-payment charges. In spite of this they charged Rs. 42,300 as pre-payment charges. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed instant complaint before District Forum for refund of the said amount. 2. Vide impugned order dated 15.11.2006, the Dist...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. N.H.K. Springs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT548

1. The appellant/Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original by which the Cenvat credit of Service Tax of Rs. 27,126/- taken by the respondent on outward transportation was disallowed and recovery ordered while imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as well as order-in-original disallowing Cenvat credit of Service Tax of Rs. 1,00,503/- taken on outward transportation and imposition of penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.2. There were two orders-in-original because two show cause notices were issued on the same assessee in respect of two periods.3. The respondent Company was engaged in the manufacture of Stablizer Bar falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act and was availing the Cenvat credit even on input services. It was noticed by the Revenue that, the assessee had availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on outward freight. Two show cause notices were, therefore, issued on 6-3-2006 and 21/24-4-2006 to deny the respondent Ce...

The Management Group Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ173CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 20,551/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for late payment of Service Tax.The appellant did not file any reply to the show cause notice.2. The learned authorised representative for the appellant submitted that the appellant had deposited the service tax along with interest on 13.8.02 and the service tax return was to be submitted on 25.4.02.There was delay of only about four months. It was submitted that since the appellant honestly deposited the dues, penalties should not have been imposed under Section 76 of the Act. Moreover, there was a Extra-ordinary-Tax-Payer Friendly Scheme, benefit of which has not been given to the appellant. It was also submitted that the appellant was suffering from asthma which should have been considered as a reasonable cause for waiving the penalty by applying the provisions of Section 80.3. It is evident from the provisio...

Cepham Laboratories Ltd., Mr. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC378

1. The issue arising in these appeals is connected. Accordingly, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Appellant M/s Cepham Organics are manufacturers of (i) Ampicillin Trihydrate/Anhydrous IPBP, (ii) Amoxycillin Trihydrate IP/BP and (iii) Cloxacillin Sodium IPBP. These drugs are subject to Central Excise duty. The inputs going into their production are also eligible for credit (MODVAT) of Central Excise duty paid on them.3. During the period April, 1993 to July, 1997, the appellants received inputs like Pencillin-G, Menthaoil, HCL, Ammonia Gas, Methalene Chloride and Toluene and took credit of duty paid on them. These inputs are to be first converted into an intermediate product, 6 APA. M/s Cepham Organics does not undertake this conversion of the inputs into 6 APA for some technical reasons like the danger of contamination of other products manufactured in the factory. The inputs are therefore, transferred to the other appellant, namely M/s Cepham Lab...

Bharat Coca-cola Bottling N.E. Vs. Cc and Ce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC155

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Water classifiable under sub-heading 22.01 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.Three show cause notices were issued alleging that on scrutiny of the RT-12 return for the month of February 1999 to March 2000, it was noticed in col. 8 of RT-12 that the appellant sold bottles of aerated water as burst and no duty was paid on the said goods. In reply to show cause notices, the appellant explained that the burst of the bottles were beyond the human control. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that aerated water bottles have been burst while handling the same in the bonded storeroom. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.2. The representative of the appellant submits that the entire loss is within 0.5% and therefore, in terms of the Board Circular dated 08.09.1971, the payment of duty thereon shall be ...