Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

N.D.R. Israni Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR410(Delhi)

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed on 9th July, 1998 by the Delhi Development Authority to the award dated 6th February, 1998 made and published by Shri V.D. Tiwari, Sole Arbitrator.2. The petitioner had been awarded the work of construction of 1296 MIG Houses at Trilokpuri, SH; c/o 352 MIG Houses including internal development in Group IV, Trilokpuri. The parties entered into an agreement bearing No. 4/DD-VII-82-83. The stipulated date of completion of the work was 4th June, 1983. The contractor was granted six months extension of time to complete the contract under Clause 10(C) of the contract between the parties and thus was required to complete the work by 4th December, 1983. The admitted date of actual completion of the work was 29th November, 1984 that is after a delay of HVi months. Disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the provisions of the arbitration cla...

Him Engineers India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant filed Misc. application for early hearing in Appeal No. E/2340/07. The Misc. application is allowed and the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. Heard both sides. Appeal No. E/2340/07 is filed against the impugned order whereby the benefit of Notification No. 50/03-CE was denied and the Appeal No. E/208/08 is filed against the order which is in respect of the demand after denying the benefit of notification.3. Notification No. 50/2003-CE dt. 10.6.03 provides exemption of goods in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and other than the goods specified in Annexure-I and cleared from a unit located in the Industrial Growth Centre or Industrial Infrastructure Development Centre or Export Promotion Industrial Park or Industrial Estate or Industrial Area from the whole of the excise duty or additional duty of excise provided that the exemption contained in the notification shall apply subject to the following condition: One of the c...

Neel Metal Products Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against impugned order whereby the benefit of Cenvat credit was denied on the ground that the supplier of inputs wrongly paid the duty in respect of the inputs received by the appellant as the process undertaken by the manufacturer does not amount to manufacture in view of the Board's Circular issued on 2.3.05.2. The contention of the appellant is that circular was issued on 2.3.05 treating the processes undertaken by the supplier of inputs does not amount to manufacture whereas prior to this date the activity undertaken by the supplier of inputs was treated as manufacturer. The contention is that dispute is in respect of the inputs received from 2.3.05 to 24.3.05. The inputs were received under cover of invoices showing payment of duty and there is no dispute regarding payment of duty. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. v. CCE 3. The contention of the rev...

Ram Roop S/O Shri Moti Lal and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present Original Application had earlier come up before this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: (i) to quash and set aside the impugned order No. 942 E/9/R/Const. Dated 16.6.2004. (ii) to quash and set aside the order dated 18.9.2002 vide which the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicants for regularization as SOM in the Gr. of Rs. 4500-7000/-. (iii) to direct the respondents to grant the applicants the regular pay scale of SOM from the date of his ad-hoc promotion i.e. 1.1.1987. (iv) to direct the respondents to grant the applicants the pay difference between the scale which they are drawing from the date of their ad-hoc promotion and the regular pay scale of SOM with 18% interest.2. Tribunal vide its order dated 17.01.2006 partly allowed OA-2178/2004 holding that: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, following the above, OA is partly allowed. The request of applicants for regularization is turned down. However, their pay would be protected whatever they...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Momina Khatum and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2734

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 challenging the award dated 09.06.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Delhi. 2. Vide impugned award respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as the dependents) have been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,98,060/- as compensation along with interest @12% per annum from the date of the accident. 3. Two points have been urged in the present appeal. The first point urged is whether the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation was justified in entertaining the claim for compensation instituted by respondents No. 1 to 7 in light of the fact that they did not serve upon the employer the notice of accident as required under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. Second point urged is that whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest and if yes, from what date. 4. The relevant facts are that Mr. Jafar Ali (hereinafter re...

Sh. Asha Sehgal and ors. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ172

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.CM No. 478/011. Present application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC has been filed by the appellants seeking impleadment of legal heirs of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Agya Wati Sehgal who died on 22.02.2001.2. The application is allowed.3. Amended memo of parties be filed within a week from today.CM No. 941/021. In the present application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellants it has been stated that one Smt. Phool Chopra who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 2 has also died. Impleadment of the legal heirs Smt. Phool Chopra is prayed for.2. The application is allowed.3. Amended memo of parties be filed within a week from today.CM No. 1010/021. In the present application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellants it has been stated that one Smt. Gargi Puri who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 2 has also died. Impleadment of the legal heirs Smt. Gargi Puri is prayed for.2. The application is allowed.3. Am...

Thomas and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bell Poly Moulders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR98(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying inter alias for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 42 of the agreement governing the parties. It is stated that the petitioner undertook the construction of the factory and office building for respondent No. 1 under agreement dated 3.7.2002. After the work was completed, the petitioner raised a bill on the respondents which was duly passed by the Architect and accordingly in terms of the agreement, the payment was to be made on the certificate of the Architect. The Architect gave a completion certificate for the aforesaid work on 25.7.2003. A final bill was submitted by the petitioner on 12.3.2004, which was certified by the Architect for a sum of Rs.19,48,590/- vide his letter dated 22.6.2004.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that certain cheques paid by the respondents to the petitioner for clearing the outstanding payments were dis...

Sh. Deepak Khanna Vs. Pandit Bro. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT386

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for referring the counter- claims raised by the petitioner to the named Arbitrator Ms. Justice Usha Mehra (Retd.), who was appointed by agreement of the other parties to these proceedings and has entered upon reference. The facts necessary for deciding this petition are briefly stated below:2. In 1992, apparently a partnership deed was executed and it reconstituted an existing firm 'M/s. Pandit Bros.'. The terms of the partnership were again changed in 1998, when the firm was reconstituted; a fresh deed was drawn up on 13.11.1998. It was executed by nine parties. The said parties were:Name of the Partner Amount of Fixed Capital1. Ms. Archana Haksar 60,0002. Shri Vinay Kumar Mushran 60,0003. Ms. Nandita Haksar 60,0004. Ms. Anamika Haksar 60,0005. Smt. Rup Haksar 40,000 6. Smt. Linnet Margaret Mushran 40,0007. Shri Rajesh Khanna 60,000 8. Smt. Vijaya...

Sh. Mahinder Kumar JaIn Vs. Sh. Mehar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT580

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. It is unfortunate that for 14 years the instant appeal has remained in the record room of this Court as an After Notice Miscellaneous Matter. No question of law has been framed till date.2. Whether or not a question of law requires to be framed3. The answer would depend whether a case is made out to frame one.4. In my opinion, no substantial question of law or for that matter even a question of law requires to be framed, as none arises.5. Appellant was the plaintiff. His suit for possession and damages was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1992. First appeal being RCA No. 14/1992 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1994.6. Briefly stated, appellant's case was that vide sale deed dated 20.6.1971, Ex. P-1, he had purchased 200 sq.yds. of land comprised in Khasra No. 115 of Village Shakurpur Khas, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi from its owners S/Shri Revti Prasad, Balwant, Chander Bhan, Onkar and Ram Sharan. That the reg...

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. This order disposes of is 642/2008, an application seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff holds a patent. Emergent notice was issued, and the parties filed their pleadings as well as documents in support of their contentions, in the suit and the interlocutory proceedings. The application was heard finally for disposal.I The suit1. The Plaintiffs in this suit seek permanent injunction restraining infringement of their patent rights in the drug Erlotinib, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up of the infringing goods.2. The first Plaintiff is a company organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and has its principal office at Grenzacherstrasse, 124 CH 4070, Basel Switzerland. The second Plaintiff is a company organized and incorporated under the laws of the United States with its registered office at 41, Pinelawn Road, Melville,...