Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

N.C. Mittal and Co. Vs. Ministry of Urban Development

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ160

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This is a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicant seeks a direction that the mandate of the Arbitrator has terminated.2. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into an agreement for development of software services. Disputes arose; they were referred to arbitration in terms of a condition in the contract agreed upon by the parties. This proceeding is premised on the manner in which the Arbitrator dealt with the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner's application under Section 17 was listed on 22.5.2007. The Arbitrator, however, refused to consider it and thereafter indicated that in the event of a defect being cured, he would consider the same. Subsequently, after intimation to the parties, it is contended that the Arbitrator had decided the matter in the petitioner's absence and had not even intimated its result to him. The petitioner alleges that he came to know about outcome of the application fro...

Saini Consultants Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC180

2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby CHA licence of the appellant was suspended under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.3. The main contention of the appellant is that no notice was issued before passing suspension order. It is also submitted by the appellant that the Tribunal in various decisions held that notice is necessary before passing the suspension order. The appellant also submitted that the order is passed without application of mind as there is no evidence against the appellant that he is party to fraud committed by two other persons. The contention is that prior to passing the impugned order the statements were recorded where they admitted that they had defrauded the Custom authorities.4. The appellant relied upon the decision of Single Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. v. CC and where the licence of another CHA was suspended on the basis of the ...

Pneumatic Power Tool and Co. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ20CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of total Service Tax of Rs. 13,29,877/- and penalties. The demand of Service Tax is confirmed by treating the applicant as provider of cargo handling service.3. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant is nothing to do with the cargo handling. The contract is for nesting, packeting and bundling of merchant mill products. The another contract is for utilization of merchant products bundles placed on wagons by metal strap at five places and suitably sealing the strap. The contention is that applicant is not doing anything regarding loading or unloading of cargo, therefore, is not covered under the cargo handling service. The contention is also that nesting, packeting of merchant mills is not handling cargo.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicant entered into a contract with the M/s Bhilai Steel in nesting, packeting and bundling of merchant mill product. As per the contract, one of activity is product packa...

The Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dt.27.2.06 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order, while setting aside the penalty imposed by the original adjudicating authority, has upheld the disallowance of the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,39,113/-.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cane Sugar, Molasses and DEA falling under Tariff Heading 17.01, 17.03 and 2204.10 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.4. The issue involved in the instant appeal is whether Cenvat credit is admissible on HREC Sheet, G.P. Sheet and Plates (all items of Chapter 72) as "capital goods" under Rule 2(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.The case relates to the period Dec'03 to Jan'04. The functional uses of the above referred items, as detailed in reply to the SCN by the appellants, are as under: i) H.R.E.C. Sheet (S. No. 1 & 3 of Annexure - A of the SCN) This has been used in Sugar Hoppers trough for conveyin...

Ram Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant through this OA seeks simultaneously on sub-judice criminal trial release of gratuity and leave encashment as well as commutation and impugned respondents' order dated 23.10.2006, whereby the decision of the Tribunal dated 4.8.2005 has been observed to be applicable to a specific claim.2. The claim has been resisted on the ground that trial in a Special CBI Court is sub judice since 28.6.2002 for loss to the Government on an allegation relating to extra payment to a firm. Accordingly, it is stated that the leave encashment has been withheld as per Rule 39 (3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.3. Learned Counsel of applicant, on the other hand, states that when two of the co-accused have been released leave encashment vide order dated 1.11.2007, non-extension of the same benefits to applicant would amount to invidious discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.4. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties as per Rule 39 ...

Jagmohan Sharma and ors. Vs. Chatar Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ1260

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award dated 23.11.2006, whereby the compensation amount of Rs. 2,84,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellants along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation. The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is that the Tribunal has ignored the monthly salary certificate which was proved on record as Ex. PW1/1.The brief facts of the case are as under:On 15.2.2006 at about 5 p.m., the deceased Smt. Sneh Sharma was crossing Shankar Road red light near Hongchi Restaurant towards old Rajender Nagar and when she reached near the divider of the road, suddenly a Tata bus bearing registration No. DLIPA 1835 which was coming from Ridge Road side being driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, consequently she received fatal injuries and died on the spot.2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased Smt. Sneh Sharma...

Medisphere Marketing P. Ltd. Vs. Medi Trade Medical Trading

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas108(Delhi); (2008)2CompLJ198(Del); 147(2008)DLT531; 2008(101)DRJ116; [2008]85SCL313(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge under the order dated 7th October, 2005. The aforesaid order came to be passed by the learned Company Judge in a petition filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act by the respondent contending, inter alia, that the appellant is indebted to the respondent and that the appellant is unable to pay its debt.2. When the said petition was filed, objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the affidavit annexed to the petition was not in the prescribed form and, thereforee, the said petition could not have been entertained and was required to be dismissed on that ground alone. The second objection was also regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the power of attorney, on the basis of which the affidavit was filed by one Shri Pankaj Sachdeva, is not stamped and,...

Gugan Singh Vs. Director General, Crpf

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)SLJ63(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). At the time of making application for recruitment to the said post, he did not inform the respondents that there was a criminal case pending against him under Sections 148/149/323/325/506 IPC. It is not in dispute that there was a specific column in the application for giving such an information about the involvement of the applicant in a criminal case. The respondents came to know of the pendency of such a case when verification of the petitioners antecedents was made by requesting Superintendent of Police, Rohtak (Haryana). The petitioner was still a temporary employee and, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 his services were terminated vide order dated 22.1.2000. The petitioner submitted appeal there against, which was also, dismissed by the DIG, CRPF on 22.2.2000. Thereafter, revision petition was filed, which met the same fate as it...

R.S. Rathore Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2008)BC599

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These are three petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.') seeking the quashing of a Criminal Complaint titled 'Reserve Bank of India v. Kuber Auto General Finance & Leasing Ltd. and Ors.' and an Order dated 18th December, 2003 by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi ('MM') dismissed the application for recall of the summoning order dated 21st September, 1999. Since the three petitions are directed against a common criminal complaint, summoning order, and the order dismissing the application for recall, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In 1999, a complaint was filed by the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI') against Kuber Auto General Finance and Leasing Limited (hereafter the 'Company') and six others who are described in the complaint as its Directors as indicated in the Annual Report of the Company for the year ending 31st March, 1998. The complaint states that the Company submitted an application on 3...

Praveen Tomar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(3)SLJ438(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner herein applied for a post in the Army. After due selection he was enrolled in Rajputana Rifles Centre, Delhi Cantt. on 20th December, 2003. After completion of one year Infantry Army training he was posted as Sepoy to 4 Rajputana Rifles and he reported for duty on 29th December, 2004. When he had spent about 1 year 10 months in the service, he was served with charge-sheet dated 12th August, 2005. As per the said charge-sheet, following charge was made against him:Army Act making at the time of enrolment under Section 44 wilfully false answer to a question set forth in the prescribed form of enrolment which was put to him by the Enrolling Officer before whom he appeared for the purpose of being enrolled.In that he,at RAJ REF Regimental Centre, Delhi Cantt. on 22 December, 2003, when appeared before Commandant, an Enrolling Officer, for the purpose of being enrolled for service in the 'RAJPUTANA RIFLES REGIMENT' to the question put to him, 'Have you ever b...