Delhi Court February 2010 Judgments

Vishnu Prakash Bajpai Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]154CompCas147(Delhi)

V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Sections 24(1) and 27 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. Quashing has been sought primarily on the ground that the petitioner was neither a director nor a person in charge of and responsible to the Company N.R. Plantations (India) Limited, for conduct of its business and, therefore, he is not vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company. The petitioner claims that he only subscribed to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company, which does not make him a person in charge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of its business.2. In order to regulate entities, which used to issue instruments such as Agro Bonds, Plantation Bonds, etc., Government of India decided to treat such schemes as Collective Investment Schemes and brought them under the purview of SEBI A...

Bayer Corporation and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(1)242

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants?In the writ petition the appellants Bayer Corporation and Bayer Polychem (India) Ltd. (hereafter collectively referred to as 'Bayer') sought directions inter alia to restrain the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), respondent No. 2 herein, from granting a drug licence to Cipla Ltd. (hereafter 'Cipla'), respondent No. 3 herein (a generic drug manufacturer), to manufacture, sell and distribute its drug 'sorafenib tosylate', prescribed for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Facts in brief2. On 5th July, 2001 Bayer Corporation, Appellant No. 1, filed a patent application in India in respect of an invention entitled 'Carboxyaryl Substituted Diphenyl Ureas'. On 1st January 2003 Bayer Corporation transferred its rights to Bayer Pharamceuticals Corporation (BPC) and on 1st August 2007 BPC in turn transferred its righ...

Cce, Indore Vs. M/S Man Industries (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

At the request of learned DR, time granted to place on record the legible copies of the order as also the documents which are referred to in the order. Stand over to 15.04.2010....

Ucb Farchim Sa Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2010(1)278

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These six petitions raise an important question of law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller.) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act.).2. Before discussing the facts of the individual cases the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment Act.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Mitra & Company v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs : (2008) 10 SCC 368 require to be examined. The statutory scheme of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act3. Section 15 of the Patents Act states that where the Controller is satisfied that the application for grant of patent, or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requi...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S A.V.R. Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Revenue’s appeal is against the order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dropping penalty proceeding initiated under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that oral evidence recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly proved the case to be under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the said Act. Such a vital aspect was not considered by the authorities below. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Bipin Garg for the assessee opposes the averment of Revenue on the ground that when the authorities were made aware on 10.11.06 that the case is covered by Section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the authorities should not have even proceed to issue notice under Section 11A of the said Act. He also submits that the assessee immediately discharged the duty liability before issuance of the show cause notice. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. There is no necessity to look further factual background in view of admitted shortage of goods found in ...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S S.S. Polyfilms (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: None present for the Respondent. But there is a prayer by application dated 25.1.09 received in the office of the Registry on 1.2.10 praying for decision of the matter on merit. Therefore the matter has been taken up for disposal with the assistance of Revenue. 2. Ld. DR Shri S.N. Srivastava for Revenue submits that proceedings arose consequent upon investigation made on 16.5.98 resulting in shortage of stock of finished goods when physical inventory did not agree with the recorded stock. Such a discrepancy resulted in duty demand of Rs.88,753/- along with penalty of equal amount. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his order states that there was no corroborative evidence of clandestine removal and waived the penalty. But the Adjudicating Authority has made a clear finding that the case was made noticing the elements of Section 11A of Central Excise Act 1944 being present. He has made a thorough enquiry which is coming out from elaborate order passed making an appropriate fi...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Latex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Against waiver of penalty made by both the authorities Revenue came in appeal. Revenue s contention is that once there is stock discrepancy found and particularly shortage of raw material resulting in duty loss of Rs.1,27,224/-, the case was covered by Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as The Act ). Once it is so covered, Section 11AC shall apply. Therefore Shri Srivastava, ld. DR appearing for Revenue submits that both the authorities below committed error for not imposing penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Hemant Bajaj appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that concurrent finding of both the authorities suggests that the case was not being made as a case causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in absence of the element of Section 11A being found out. Malafide of the assessee has not been brought to record. Merely because the assessee cooperated with Revenue to discharge the duty liability to reduce the litigation, penalty cann...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Kurele Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: In this case, Revenue is aggrieved for waiver of penalty by ld. Appellate Authority while ld. Adjudicating Authority imposed penalty of Rs.1,83,830/-. Ld. DR Shri S.N. Srivastava submits that consequent upon investigation on 23.12.04 the shortage of finished goods was found. The assessee explained that shortage is relatable to work in progress, which was not actually shown but an established case of clandestine removal. Therefore if the assessee has discharged duty liability, the case did not call for waiver of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel Shri Hemant Bajaj submits that goods in question was properly been dealt by the assessee and that was explained on the strength of Chartered Accountant s certificate. The department could not find out that goods were clandestinely removed and the element of Section 11A was present. His further argument is that when the penalty was proposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002, the penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed. 3. Hear...

Cce, Kanpur Vs. M/S Anod Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per D.N. Panda: Ld. DR Shri Baig submits that both the authorities below failed to impose penalty when they appreciated the case was a case of unfound inventory taken on 6.6.06. There was no evidence led by the assessee to prove that shortage of goods alleged was in existence. When lapse of assessee surfaced, it came forward to deposit the duty element on 28.6.06 without any dispute. When the adjudication was made issuing notice that clearly establishes that the case was covered by proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without a case being covered by any unintentional cause to prejudice interest of Revenue. Therefore the authority should not have committed an error to overlook the provisions of law and waived penalty when penalty was warranted in the present case which may be subject to third proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Manish Saharan, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently argues that both the authorities below wa...

M/S Abc Paper Vs. Cce, Jallandhar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Oral Order Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these four appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned DR for the respondent. 3. In all these matters the cenvat credit in relation to the inputs utilized in the final goods having been disallowed, the appellants have been directed to pay 8% of the price of the exempted goods. In Excise Appeal No. 1809 of 2005, on adjudication of the show cause notice dated 31.05.2004 for the period May 2003 to March 2004, the appellants have been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,26,59,970/- in addition to penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. In Excise Appeal No. 567 of 2007, on adjudication of the show cause notices dated 17.05.2005 and 24.02.2006 for the period February 2001 to March 2005, the appellants have been directed to pay sum of Rs. 2,07,68,019/-. In Excise Appeal No. 2459 of 2007, on adjudication of show ...