Delhi Court March 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 8 of about 197 results (0.019 seconds)Elder Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Pasupati Fabrics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Manmohan, J.1. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') challenging the arbitral Award dated 10th February, 2003 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (Retd.)2. Ms. Suresh Kumari, learned Counsel for petitioner-objector submits that there was no concluded Underwriters' Agreement executed between petitioner-objector and respondent-claimant.3. Ms. Suresh Kumari further submits that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties as in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the Underwriters' Agreement, disputes were to be adjudicated by an arbitration committee constituted by the Regional Stock Exchange. She points out that as the said committee had refused to act as the arbitrator, the only option available to respondent-claimant was to file a civil suit.4. Ms. Suresh Kumari lastly submits that the Arbitrator could not have rejected petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Yashwinder Khurana Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 Deputy Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act on an application moved by respondent No. 2 (workman) dated 25th may, 2008 be quashed and the Deputy Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act be directed to initiate action of perjury and fraud against respondent No. 2 (workman).2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent No. 2 herein was working with the petitioner's factory where some mishap took place on 22nd January 2008 and respondent No. 2 lost two fingers of one of his hands. He (workman) lodged a compensation claim with the office of Commissioner on 11th March, 2008 under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act and the same was registered there. However, the workman on 9th April, 2008 is stated to have entered into a settlement with the petitioner for compensation in respect of injuries and receiv...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Dev Parsad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, while admitting the appeal on 2nd March 2010, it was directed that the appeal would be listed for hearing today in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters'.2. Accordingly, the appeal has been heard for final disposal today.3. Believing the testimony of Smt. Sunita PW-2, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence of having sodomised Baby 'S' as also for having murdered Baby 'S'.4. That Baby 'S' was sodomised stands established through her post-mortem report Ex.PW-15/A proved at the trial by Dr. Anil Shandil PW-15. External injury No. 2, being a bruised tear with abrasion and laceration extending from the anal margins into the anus itself with adherent specs of blood, show that Baby 'S' was sodomised.5. That Baby 'S' was strangulated to death as a result of manual strangulation is evidenced from external injury No. 1 on the neck of Baby 'S' which records multiple pressure abrasio...
Tag this Judgment!Asi Jai Bhagwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17th August, 2009 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner's application praying for keeping the disciplinary proceedings against him in abeyance on the ground that the petitioner stood implicated in a criminal prosecution. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to keep in abeyance the departmental enquiry proceedings till final disposal of his criminal prosecution.2. The petitioner was appointed on 21st June, 1973 as a constable of the Railway Protection Force, in which post he was serving on all relevant dates. It has been submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner was trapped in a case while he was posted as an Asst. Sub Inspector with the Railway Protection Force at Nizamuddin Station, which resulted in the registration of FIR No. 44/2007 dated 18th September, 2007 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against him. The petitioner has contended that...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Standard Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11/CE/NOIDA/ 2007 dated 15.10.2007 . 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant received inputs from M/s. Hoganas India Ltd. and took modvat credit/ Cenvat credit. Subsequent to taking of credit the appellant received credit notes from the supplier. The present dispute relates to demand of Rs.15,773/- being proportional credit attributable to reduction in prices consequent to issue of credit notes by the supplying unit. Vide Misc. Order No. 266/09 dated 21.12.09 Revenue was directed to get the report from Central Excise Division, Ahmednagar in whose jurisdiction their supplying unit was situated, to find out as to whether there is any refund claim consequent to reduction in price filed by the supplying unit. Copy of the report addressed to the SDR office sent by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division V, NOIDA forwarding copy of the report of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad D...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Standard Sintered Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 11/CE/NOIDA/ 2007 dated 15.10.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellant received inputs from M/s. Hoganas India Ltd. and took modvat credit/ Cenvat credit. Subsequent to taking of credit the appellant received credit notes from the supplier. The present dispute relates to demand of Rs.15,773/- being proportional credit attributable to reduction in prices consequent to issue of credit notes by the supplying unit. Vide Misc. Order No. 266/09 dated 21.12.09 Revenue was directed to get the report from Central Excise Division, Ahmednagar in whose jurisdiction their supplying unit was situated, to find out as to whether there is any refund claim consequent to reduction in price filed by the supplying unit. Copy of the report addressed to the SDR office sent by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division V, NOIDA forwarding copy of the report of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad Di...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Shivangi Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 83-CE/APPL/KNP/2007 dated 2.3.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised several grounds in the appeal memoranda and submits that the same have not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, it is noticed that opportunity of personal hearings was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10.1.07, 17.1.07, 24.1.07, 19.2.07 and 27.2.07 and the appellant did not appear before Commissioner (Appeals) on any of these days. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be faulted for passing an ex-parte order and not considering the submissions now raised before the Tribunal. However, as several issues have been raised which could not be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the ex-part order, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to give one more chance to the appellant and accordingly, I set aside the or...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Vinayak Ultraflex (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Kanpur
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 338-CE/APPL/KNP/2007 dated 19.10.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. When the officers visited the factory premises of the appellant on 27.2.07, they found recorded stock of 12580 kgs. of printing ink whereas the quantity available on physical verification was 9699.80 kgs. thus, a shortage of 2880.12 kgs.; similarly, in respect of metalised film the book stock was 19103.62 kgs. whereas the available stock was only 16583.60 kgs. thus, a shortage of 2520 kgs. The total value of the short found goods was Rs.9,24,143/- and the cenvat credit taken on them was Rs.1,50,820/-. Shortage ascertained in the presence of two independent witnesses was admitted by authorised signatory in his statement dated 27.2.07 and the duty involved stands paid on 1.3.2007. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 9.5.07 was issued for confirming the duty demand and proposing imposition of penalty. The appellant filed reply dated 6.6.07 wh...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kanoria Chemicals and Inds. (Textile Division) Vs. Cce, Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per Justice RMS Khandeparkar: None present for the appellants and learned DR Shri B.L.Soni for the respondent. Appeal is dismissed for default....
Tag this Judgment!M/S Alpha Drugs India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 222/CE/CHD/2007 dated 4.7.07. 2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice. On earlier occasions on 28.1.2010 and on 10.12.09 also, the appellant was not represented. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. 3. The Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.28,343/- and Rs.4800/- on the items namely, Precelain tiles, wall glass lamp, FLO/WPPBS light fittings and postgo, non toxic bird detterent get holding that these items are neither capital goods nor input. The CENVAT credit of Rs.13,517/- has also been disallowed on UPS system and part thereof holding that computer used in the office is not eligible for CENVAT credit. After going through the case records the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.46660/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.46660/- upon the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority...
Tag this Judgment!