Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

D.M. Jawahar Merican Vs. Engineer India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR563(Delhi); 153(2008)DLT642

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In this proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), the petitioner challenges the validity of the award of a sole arbitrator, made on 18.01.2005. The respondent, at the threshold objects to maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that the petition under Section 34 of the Act, was filed beyond time prescribed by law.2. To better appreciate the controversy the following essential facts are narrated. The award was announced on 18th January, 2005. The arbitrator at that stage communicated copies of the award to the parties. He however, recorded that the original award was not being communicated since it had to bear the prescribed stamp duty. The claimant (i.e. the petitioner here) was directed to ascertain the required amount and send the stamp papers to enable the arbitrator to have the award imprinted on it. On 12.02.2005, the petitioner moved the arbitrator for clarification, correction...

Sadguru Land Finance Vs. Santosh Garg

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against the order of the District Forum dated 8th January, 2008 whereby the appellant was held guilty of deficiency of service in demanding the maintenance charges and was directed to execute the sale deed of Plot No. E-20, Ved Vihar, Loni, U.P. without demanding any amount either on account of maintenance charges or registration charges as the complainant had already paid the sum of Rs. 40,800 to the OP. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 3. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order are that the Respondent, Mrs. Santosh Garg was the allottee of plot No. E-20, Ved Vihar, Loni, UP in a project launched by the OP and had agreed to pay Rs. 1,20,000 being the cost of the plot. The last instalment of Rs. 8,600 was paid on 30.6.1993 vide receipt No. 1845. However, the Appellant did not inform the complainant ab...

A.i.i.M.S. Vs. Raj Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008BusLR863(Del)

ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26th March 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) 2771 of 1999 filed by the appellant All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).2. The facts leading to the fling of the appeal are that the respondent Raj Singh was working as Driver with AIIMS on daily wages since 1st August 1984 and continued to work as such till 13th August 1987 on daily wages. Aggrieved by the termination of the services, Raj Singh raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. By an Award dated 4th December 1988 the Labour Court decided the issues in favour of the workman and against the appellant herein and directed the reinstatement of the workman, without back wages. Aggrieved to the extent, the back wages was denied, the workman filed WP(C) 5569 of 1999. The appellant herein AIIMS filed WP(C) 2771 of 1999 insofar as the termination of the services of the respondent were held to be illegal and reinstatem...

Commissioner of Customs (i and G) Vs. U.T. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(132)ECC189; 2008(158)LC189(Delhi); 2008(232)ELT199(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 is preferred by the Commissioner of Customs against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi on 31.08.2007 in Customs Appeal 325/2007-SM (BR).2. The respondent had entered into a contract on 26.04.1999 with Air Headquarters, Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi for supply and installation of a DTS system at a contracted price of Rs 81,89,000/-. For the purposes of supply and installation of the said DTS system, the respondent imported CCTV systems and filed a bill of entry dated 29.07.1999 classifying the said goods under the Customs Tariff Heading 8530.80. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the said CCTV systems ought to be classified under the Customs Tariff Heading 8531.10. As a result of this, the respondent was compelled to pay customs duty on the basis of the classification insisted upon by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the add...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gomti Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ2827

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 28/10/2006 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the tribunal passed the impugned award contrary to the law and the facts of the case and has erred in holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation to the claimants; therefore, the impugned award should be set aside.3. To appreciate the controversy raised, a brief reference needs to be made to the facts of the present case, which are as follows:On 3.9.1992 the deceased Sh. Satya Narain Bharadwaj was sitting in his car near Raj Hotel, NTPC Gate No.2 for getting the air filled in the tyres of his car bearing registration no. DBD 1335. Suddenly, a bang occurred in the high tension electric line which was passing through the said place, therefore, people started running helter skelter causing chaos. Mr. Bharadwaj also ran towards the gap in verge and suddenly Sh. Nand Lal a...

Bright Star Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. Aircon Engineers P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ764

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals have been taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant, M/s. Bright Star Hotels Pvt. Ltd., has challenged the order dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA(OS) No. 04/2008 and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th August, 2007 passed in FAO(OS) No. 72/2008.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:a. The appellant are the promoters of a hotel namely 'The Bristol', located at 108-110, Sikandarpur, Main Gurgaon Faridabad Road, Haryana and had engaged the services of the Respondent, for purposes of installing, erecting and commissioning of an Air-conditioning system for their hotel at Gurgaon.b. A work order dated 29th June, 1995 was placed on the respondent for a value of Rs. 19,59,362/-.c. Although the scope of work remained the same, the value of the contract was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 69,13,967.94. On execution of the said work, the resp...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harig Crank Shafts Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN31(Delhi)

ORDER1. This appeal arises from the Tribunal's order dated 14-12-2006 wherein the Tribunal had relied on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) and held that imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') was bad in law in view of the fact that there was no satisfaction recorded in the assessment order. The Tribunal had not examined the question of penalty on merits.2. Section 271 of the Act has been amended by the Finance Act of 2008 by the introduction of Sub-section (1B) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989. In view of the said amendment, this matter would have to be decided on merits. Since the Tribunal did not do so on account of the view taken on the preliminary issue based on the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.'s case (supra), we remand the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on merits on the question of penalty under Section ...

Shri Govind Lal S/O Late Shri Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Members constituting the Bench could not agree among themselves while passing final order in TA 61/2007. Resultantly formulating the point of divergence, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chairman, and on his order, the T.A has come before me. The issue framed is whether in the event of imposition of minor penalty, the entire procedure of furnishing copy of inquiry report to the delinquent officer is required to be done.2. Hon'ble Mrs. Chitra Chopra, Member (A) had held that practically the person concerned had admitted the lapse committed by him. She had extracted in Paragraph 6, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, to this effect. When the applicant was expected to render an opinion as a Law Officer, he erred in giving advice on the file without checking positions carefully and it was indeed a lapse, which could not be ignored. Although an enquiry had been held, this basic fact remained, and therefore, strict adherence to the Rule might not have been warranted to upset the...

Ashok Kumar S/O Daya Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Services of Ashok Kumar, Field Assistant (GD), the applicant herein, were terminated vide order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure A-1) with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice. It is this order and the order dated 23.10.2007 (Annexure A-2) vide which his appeal against the order/notice aforesaid was dismissed, that have been called in question in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The only controversy in the present case is whether even though, the order Annexure A-1 dated 21.8.2007 may be innocuous terminating the services of the applicant in pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965), the same, in fact and reality, is punitive in nature and, therefore, before any action could be taken against the applicant and his services terminated, he ought to have been heard i...

Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs. Opal Metal Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi1; 2008(106)DRJ365

Hima Kohli, J.1. By this order the Court proposes to dispose of an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereunder the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff cannot file any proceedings seeking to hold the suit property after expiry of the lease period i.e. after 31.12.2006 and that as the lease agreement is an unregistered document, and is hit by the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short `the Stamp Act'), the suit is barred by law.2. A brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary before dealing with the present application. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant praying inter alia for the following reliefs:(a) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men or agents, and all other persons acting on its behalf from preventing and/ or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property situated at Plo...