Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Chola Turbo Machinery International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Credit B ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC547; 149(2008)DLT313

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These are two proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner seeks orders from this court, to restrain the respondents from encashing and realizing the proceeds of two bank guarantees issued at its request, by the respondent banks. With consent of counsel for the parties, the two petitions were heard today. Reasons are indicated by this order, today, as the Court concluded hearing at 4.15 P.M., and announced its decision, in open Court.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner and the second respondent (referred to hereafter as 'the supplier' and 'the purchaser' respectively) entered into an agreement on. 21st October 2007 for the design, supply, erection and commissioning of two 11 MW power plants at Afghanistan. Among others, the agreement contained the following condition, in Schedule 12, requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantees to the seller, in the following t...

Oceanic Dehydrates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR484(Delhi); 2008(101)DRJ637

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These are objections against the Award dated 29.07.1993 made by the sole arbitrator in respect of the disputes which had arisen in connection with A/T No. J-13071/2/283/80-PUR.V dated 10.11.1980.2. Briefly stated the facts are that a tender was notified for the supply of dehydrated onions by the Army Purchase Organization. The objector had responded to the tender which culminated in the aforesaid contract dated 10.11.1980. As per the contract between the parties, the objector was required to supply dehydrated onions as per the Specification No. 142 which was issued on 11.03.1983. The said specification clearly indicated the quality, packing, marking, warranty, hygiene and inspection methods. The dehydrated onions were required to be packed in hermetically sealed tins conforming to the specifications given in paragraph 5 of the said Specification No. 142. Paragraph 13 of the said specification clearly indicated that the dehydrated onions were required to conform...

Kanwar Devi and ors. Vs. Bansal Roadways and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2182

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of the present appeal the appellants seek to challenge the impugned award whereby the compensation of Rs. 4,93,700 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till realisation.2. Brief summary of the facts of the case are:Deceased Jagdish was peddling his bicycle on 20.8.2004 and was proceeding towards Piyo Manihari, village Kondli from his house. At about 7.45 a.m., when he reached near Batra Petrol Pump, Singhu Border, G.T. Road, Delhi, a truck bearing registration No. HR 38-M 4055 driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently came from back side and hit the bicycle of the deceased, due to forceful impact of which he sustained grievous injuries all over his body and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.The main grievance of counsel for the appellants is on four grounds. The first is that the Tribunal has not considered the correct wages given under the M...

R.G.R. Transport P. Ltd. Vs. Indo Asia Tours P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ526

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on this appeal and on the order under challenge which was passed by the learned Single Judge in a Company Petition filed under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act directing that an amount of Rs. 2,11,232/- lying deposited in this Court be paid to the appellant and that if any interest is accrued on the aforesaid amount, the same shall also be paid to the appellant.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order on the ground that he has not been paid interest for the period from 18th May, 2005 till the deposit was made in the Court. The petition was filed by the appellant under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act with a prayer that the respondent is unable to pay its debt. Contention raised before the learned Company Judge was that in 1997 cars and coaches were given on hire/rent by the appellant to the respondent company and invoices were raised and that a total amount o...

Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR422

1. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the following amounts: 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, questioned the jurisdiction of the adjudication authority. The appellants have sugar factory at Basti, UP and their Head Office is in Delhi. The service tax liability is on account of Rs. 3.6 crores received by the Headquarters at New Delhi from M/s. ABB ALSTOM Power India Ltd., New Delhi. As the alleged service provider is at Delhi, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, will not have any jurisdiction for taking any action.3. Coming to merits, the learned Counsel produced a copy of the agreement entered with M/s. ABB ALSTOM Power India Ltd. and referred the scope of work mentioned thereto. He stated that on going through the scope of work, it is very clear that the activities of the appellant would only fall within the category of Business Auxiliary Service, which was introduced with effect from 1.7.200...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Diamond Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR183

1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal dated 27.7.07 allowing refund of the sum of Rs. 18,64,068/- in favour of the respondents M/s. Diamond Cement.2. The dispute relates to service tax for the period 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. The respondent is a recipient of goods transport service. Levy of service tax on goods transport service has a somewhat chequered history. Suffice it to say for the purpose of this appeal that the levy of service tax on the goods transport service on service providers led to agitation by the transport operators in the aftermath of which the liability was fastened on recipients of the service. The amendment made in this regard, however, was struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati. Later another amendment was made in the year 2000, revalidating the levy with retrospective effect from 16.11.97 which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI 3. In the...

Forge India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR489

1. In terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to deposit the duty of Rs. 1,44,213/- and equal penalty. The period of dispute is from 1-1-05 to 31-12-05. The issue is whether Cenvat credit can be taken in respect of service tax on outward transportation. The learned Counsel relied on Board's Circular No. 97/8/2007-S.T. dated 23-8-07 wherein the matter is clarified. The learned DR has stated that the appellant has not given proper evidence for incurring expenditure on outward transportation till the date of delivery.2. However, the learned Advocate countered the argument stating that evidence nad been produced but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken them into account.3. On a very careful consideration of the issue, prima facie, the appellants have a strong case in favour in view of the Board's circular. Therefore, we order full waiver of tax demanded and also penalty imposed till the disposal of appeal....

Vimal Kumar S/O Shri Karam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Goods Clerk, has impugned respondents' order dated 23.3.2007 whereby he has been put to a show cause notice for cancellation of allotment of the Government accommodation and recovery of rent at damaged rates for unauthorized subletting of the Railway accommodation. Also assailed an order passed on 25.4.2007 where applicant has been directed to vacate the Government accommodation within 7 days from the date of issue of notice and also recovery of damage rent has been ordered from the salary.2. Applicant was allotted Government Railway quarter No. 87/5 and in May, 2007, on a visit by some officials, a show cause notice dated 23.3.2007, according to the applicant's counsel, was received by applicant on 28.5.2007 and on approaching the department, a copy of the eviction order dated 25.4.2007 was received. However, applicant vacated the Government accommodation on 28.6.2007, yet the recovery effected against him has been challenged on the ground that though the show cause n...

Kartar Singh and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(98)SLJ343CAT

1. This is a Transfer Petition, which has come from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in view of Notification dated 25th July, 2007.2. Since pleading in the case were complete, with the consent of both the parties, this T.A. is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.3. Both the applicants in this case have challenged order dated 29.11.2006 whereby they have been dismissed from service in view of their conviction in a criminal case. They have also sought a direction to the respondent to allow them to join their duties forthwith with all consequential benefits. By way of amendment, they had also challenged Regulation 30 of the DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 as being arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. However, at the time of argument, Counsel for applicants made a statement that he is not pressing the relief with regard to quashing of Regulation 30.4. It is stated by Counsel for applicants that they were convicted by the Special Judge in a criminal ...

Si Rajinder Singh S/O Shiv Lal Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Rajinder Singh, Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside order dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure A-1) to the extent his pay of Rs. 5675/- w.e.f. 1.1.2005 in the scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 was not restored; order dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure A-2) to the extent the applicant would not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances for the post of SI for the period from 29.6.2005 to 10.8.2006; order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure A-3) to the extent that the pay of Rs. 5675 w.e.f. 1.1.2005 in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 was not restored to the applicant but fixed at Rs. 5675/- w.e.f. 1.8.2005; as also orders dated 5.12.2006 (Annexure A-4) and 3.4.2007 (Annexure A-5) rejecting his representation for adding two increments and fixation of correct pay equivalent to that of SI Ram Gopal treating continuation of his ad hoc promotion as SI w.e.f. 1.1.2004 till 29.6.20...