Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)155PLR37

ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Instant case relates to the insured permitting a minor to drive a motor vehicle who was not possessing any licence at all.2. Culpable violation of the term of policy of insurance is writ large.3. Learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh : (2004-1) 136 P.L.R. 510 (S.C.), to hold that the Insurance Company has to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the same from the insured.4. In my opinion, decision in Swaran Singh's case would not apply for the reason in said case the Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of take driving licence and related issues and in respect thereof opined as to under what circumstances could it be said that the insured, knowingly and willingly permitted vehicle to be driven by a person not possession or holding a valid driving licence.5. Needless to state, where a driver shows to the owner a driving licence, a physical look at the licence may rev...

Lg Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The impugned order has been passed before the appellant filed its reply to the show cause notice, the order being of 29.3.2007 and the date of filing reply being 30.3.2007. In the absence of the appellant's participation in the proceedings and consideration of its defence, it is not possible to form any idea about the merits of the case. It is, therefore, appropriate that the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after considering the reply already filed and hearing the appellant.3. In view of what is stated above, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.4. There shall also be a direction to the appellant to appear before the Commissioner on 9.8.2007 so that the Commissioner could hear it on that date itself or fix another convenient date. The appellant shall also file any additional material, if so desired, on that date.5. The appeal and the stay application are disposed of in the above terms....

Dimensional Stones Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ218CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The service tax demand is for the period from January, 2005 to March, 2006. The contention of the appellant is that since the service was rendered abroad, no tax is payable, certainly not before 18.4.2006, when Section 66A was inserted. It is also being pointed out that this was the view of the Decision Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara 2007-TIOL-785-CESTAT-Ahmedabad.3. The learned SDR, refers to the Stay Order of the Tribunal in the case of Anant Spinning Mills (Stay Order No. 249/07-ST) wherein a contrary view was taken.4. A final order has to be followed in preference to stay order. That apart, if there is a difference of opinion before Benches, it is appropriate to grant stay pending resolution of the difference of opinion.5. In view of the above, the stay application is allowed following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Foster wheely (Sic)...

Ganesh Goyal Vs. Secretary, Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT217; [2007(114)FLR1011]

Rekha Sharma, J.1. One Om Goyal was employed as Beldar with Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') since 1982. Unfortunately, on July 24, 1992 while still in service, he died. According to his family members, he died in an accident. As per the DDA, he committed suicide. This, however, is not an issue before me. The issue is denial of compassionate appointment to his son Ganesh Goyal.2. It so happened that three years after the death of Om Goyal, his widow Lakshmi Devi made an application to DDA for compassionate appointment in his place. The same did not find favor with the DDA and accordingly vide communication dated July 26, 1995, she was so informed. She made no grievance of the rejection of her application. However, on April 5, 1999, the demand for compassionate appointment re-surfaced. This time it emanated from Ganesh Goyal, son of deceased Om Goyal. As per him, his father left behind him his wife and three children including him and that the family has been living in a sta...

Milkfood Limited Vs. Union Bank of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ362(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiff, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed the present suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said code') for the recovery of Rs. 85,60,000.00 along with interest @ 20 per cent per annum. 2. It is stated that one Dany Dairy and Food Engineers Ltd. (for short, 'Dany Dairy'), which used to deal, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of dairy equipments submitted proposals and offers for the supply, erection and commissioning of evaporating plant pursuant to which a meeting took place at the Head office of the plaintiff and a formal purchase order was issued on 25.05.1998 to the local office and registered office of Dany Dairy.3. The terms and conditions included the furnishing of a bank guarantee and the defendant bank furnished three guarantees to the plaintiff, the details of which are as under:S.No. Bank Guarantee Amount Date of Issue Valid up to Number1 614(Ex. P-3) Rs.50...

Jagatjit Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. There is a service tax demand of about Rs. one crore. The demand is upon a finding that the appellant rendered Management Consultancy Service during the period 2001-2004.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of various brands of IMFL and agreements are with the bottlers. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is that the demand of about Rs. 66 lakhs is purely in relation to royalty earned upon the use of appellant's brand name/trade mark by the bottlers. It is being pointed out that this cannot come in the category of management consultancy. With regard to the remaining demand also, it is being pointed out that the agreements were composite agreements which provided for the appellants' assistance and participation in the bottling and marketing of appellants' brand of alcahols. The agreement also related to use of appellants' brand name/trade mark and royalty thereon Counsel would submit that the total realization under the agreemen...

Shamli Steels P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 53,291/- and penalty of the equal amount.The demand was confirmed treating the applicant as a commission agent and service rendered by them as 'Business Auxiliary Services'.2. The only contention of the applicant is that the demand is time-barred as no suppression can be alleged against the applicant. The applicant was under the bona fide belief that but he was not liable to pay Service Tax as he was working for some commission agent and the main commission agent was paying service tax. In view of the fact that the applicant acting as a commission agent during the relevant period, therefore, it is not a fit case for total waiver of amount of Service Tax. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- within a period of four weeks. On deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of Service Tax and penalty is waived.Adjourned to 29.8.2007 for reporting compl...

Mr. Rajat Taneja Vs. Ms. Harmeeta Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT377; II(2007)DMC469; (2008)149PLR18

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide CRP No. 1111/2003 petitioner/husband has challenged the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Matrimonial Judge deciding respondent's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 11 lacs to the wife with effect from the date of her application i.e. 21.10.2002 till date of the order dated 6.8.2003. I note that the period for which maintenance has been awarded is 9 months and 16 days. Litigation expenses in sum of Rs. 1 lac have been awarded in addition.2. Vide CRP No. 1114/2003 petitioner (husband) has challenged the order dated 21.7.2003 dismissing his application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. 3. Vide CM(M) No. 16/2005 petitioner (husband) has challenged the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Matrimonial Judge allowing application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. It is stated in CM(M) No. 16/2005 that revision petition against the order dated 6.8.2003 granting interim ma...

Shree Vinayak Cement Clearing Agency Vs. Cement Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT385

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.11.2005 dismissing the Objections filed by the Appellant under Section 34 read with Section 16(6), 28(1)(a) and 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) for setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge has recorded the argument of the Appellant, predicated on Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. : [2003]3SCR691 , that the Award is patently illegal and, thereforee, deserves to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has also noted that it was a detailed and reasoned Award that was under challenge. The Petitioner's attempt to take the learned Single Judge through the complete records in an effort to reappraise the material including the evidence on the record of the Arbitral Tribunal was rejected, as being clearly impermissible in view of the provision...

Rambagh Palace Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ210CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. No one appears for the applicant. Heard the learned authorised representative for the Department and perused the record as well as the contentions raised in the appeal memo. The applicant has relied upon the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and availed Service Tax credit on telephone bills @ 35% in accordance with Rule 3(5). The authorities below, on the basis of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3, have held that, since telephones were not installed in the premises from where the appellant was providing services of Mandap Keeper and that the telephones were installed at the reception counter and the services were connected through EPABX system, the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat Credit of input service on telephone facilities.2. It, prima facie, appears that, while the authorities below have taken note of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002, the nature of premises from where output services were provided, has been over-lo...