Delhi Court March 2012 Judgments

Sur Iron and Steel Company (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S Era Construction (India) L ...

Court: Delhi

1. The challenge in this petition is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) is to an Award dated 8th September 2005 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the dispute between the Petitioner M/s. Sur Iron and Steel Company (P) Limited and the Respondent M/s. Era Construction (India) Limited arising out of a purchase order (‘PO’) placed by the Respondent with the Petitioner by its letter dated 30th November 2000 for the supply of 12 TPH Automatic Crushing and Screening System. Background Facts 2. The PO aforementioned set out the price schedule of the goods to be supplied as well as the terms and conditions. The payment terms laid down in the PO were as under: “Payment Terms: Advance equivalent to 10% in value of equipment within 7 days of acceptance of order. 70% of the value of equipment within 7 days from the receipt of the plant at our NTPC site Talcher. 10% of the value of equipment within 7 days from the date of commis...

M/S Raj Kishan and Company Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

1. M/s. Raj Kishan and Company, the Petitioner, has in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (‘Act’) challenged an Award dated 4th June 2004 of the learned sole Arbitrator in the disputes between it and the Respondent, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (‘NTPC’), arising out of the award by NTPC in favour of the Petitioner of the contract for civil works of coal handling plant package at NCPS, NTPC, Dadri on 6th February 1989. 2. The value of the contract was Rs.4,69,25,010. The scheduled date of start was 6th February 1989 and the scheduled date of completion was 5th February 1991 i.e. after 24 months. The first extension of time (EOT) for completion was granted up to 30th June 1993, the second EOT up to 31st December 1995 and the third EOT up to 31st January 1997. 3. According to the NTPC, the Petitioner abandoned the site on 31st December 1997. On 31st January 1998, NTPC issued a notice under Clause 41.1 of the Gener...

Piyush Awasthi and Others Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue  involved is identical. 2. The dispute required to be resolved is as to whether conversion of motor spirit into motor spirit power and of HSD into HSD turbojet by mixing small quantities of multifunctional additives would amount to manufacture or not. 3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the issues are covered in respect of the same parties by the following decisions of the Tribunal:- Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Delhi 2009 (234) ELT 648 (Tri.Del) Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd Vs CCE Lucknow 2009 (240) ELT 403 (Tri.Del) 4. It stands held in the above decisions that blending of duty paid unleaded motor spirit and HSD with multifunctional Additive will not amount to manufacture as there is no change in characteristics use of the resultant product. 5. As against the above, the learned DR has drawn our attention to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of CCE Patna Vs. Indian...

M/S thermotech, M/S Flevel International Pradeep Khanna Vs. Cce, Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. All the three appeals, though arising out of two different orders, are being disposed of by a common order as they are interconnected and issue involved is identical.Appeal No.4885-4886 of 2004 2. Vide Order-in-Original No.CCE/ADJ/04-09/04, dtd. 15/22.01.04, in appeal No.4885-4886 of 2004, Commissioner has  held as under:- (i) Confirmed demand of duty of Rs.83,60,821/- against M/s Thermotech under section 11A of Central Excise Act,1944; (ii) Imposed penalty of identical amount under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules; (iii) Imposed penalty of Rs.8.50 lakhs on Shri Pradeep Khanna, Proprietor, M/s Thermoking under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules; (iv) Confiscated 5 air conditioners with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- and on payment of appropriate amount of Central Excise duty. (v) Confiscated 2 air conditioners from M/s Kashi Electricals (dealer) with an option to them to redeem the same ...

M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Archna Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Service Tax New Delhi vide which he has confirmed  the Service Tax of Rs.87,70,372 and Education Cess of Rs.1,75,407 against the appellant along with  interest and imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant  M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. entered  into an agreement with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., M/s. TIDE Water Oil Co. Ltd. and M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd.  In terms of the said agreement the BPCL, Tide Water and Savita Chemicals were permitted to use the brand name of ‘Hero Honda’ and ‘Hero Honda 40T’  on the containers of the products manufactured by them, for the purposes of marketing and promoting their said  products.   Further M/s. Hero Honda  has reserved their right to grant the said use of the trade  m...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. S.C. Gautam

Court: Delhi

V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby OA No. 3139/2009 filed by the respondent, was allowed. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition can be summarized as under: The respondent before this Court was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide order dated 07.04.1998, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Vide order dated 08.12.1998, passed by Commissioner (Personnel) of the petitioner under Regulation 19(1) of DDA (Salaries, Allowances and Condition of Service) Regulation, 1961, the respondent was removed from service w.e.f. 07.04.1998. WP(C) No. 4260/1999 was filed by the respondent, challenging the order, whereby his services were terminated. The appeal filed by the respondent against his conviction was dismissed by this Court on 01.03.2002. Vide order dated 13.07.2007, Comm...

Maya Devi Vs. Rajender Kumar

Court: Delhi

P.K.BHASIN, J. This Petition Under Section 25-B(8) Of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(Hereinafter Called ‘The Rent Act’) Has Been Filed By The Petitioner-Landlady Against The Order Dated 14.07.10 Passed By The Learned Additional Rent Controller Whereby The Application Filed By The Respondent Herein, Seeking Leave To Defend The Eviction Petition Filed By Her Against Him Under Section 14(1)(E) And 14-D Of The Rent Act For His Eviction From A Part Of Her Property No.4071, Basti Mansa Ram, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Tenanted Premises’) Was Allowed And He Has Been Permitted To Contest The Eviction Petition. 2. The Relevant Averments Made In Para No.18 (A) Of The Eviction Petition On The Basis Which Eviction Of The Respondent-Tenant Was Sought Are Re-Produced Below:- “(I) That The Premises In Tenancy/Occupation Of The Respondent Of Which The Petitioner Is The Landlady/Owner Was Let Out By Late Husband Of The Petitioner Shri K...

Rakesh Gupta and Another Vs. Ashok Dilwali

Court: Delhi

P.K.BHASIN, J. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(hereinafter called ‘the Rent Act’) has been filed by the petitioners-landlords against the order dated 15.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him and his brother Mr. Kailash Dilwali by the petitioners-landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act for their eviction from property no.A-2 Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’) was allowed and he was permitted to contest the eviction petition. 2. The eviction petition was filed against the respondent and his brother as the legal heirs of their father late Shri B.K.Dilwali who had been initially let out the tenanted premises by the grandfather of the petitioners. The relevant averments made in para no.18 (a) of the eviction petition on the basis which evi...

D.T.C. Vs. Changga Mal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN262

P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL) 1. The petitioner-management had sought from the Industrial Tribunal approval of its decision to remove the respondent from its service for some serious act of misconduct. Approval of the said action taken was sought under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947(‘the Act’) because of the pendency of some industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal between petitioner-management and its workmen in which the respondent-workman was also interested though his alleged misconduct had nothing to do with the industrial dispute pending adjudication there. 2. In the approval application it was claimed that the respondent had been removed from service after holding proper inquiry against him and also that one month’s wages, as required under the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act had been remitted to respondent by money order. 3. The respondent-workman in his reply had pleaded violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct o...

B.R. Dhameja Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. B.R. Dhameja, the applicant herein, who superannuated on 31.12.2007 as Under Secretary from the Ministry of Rural Development, the second respondent herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to grant him notional fixation of pay to the next higher post of Deputy Secretary with effect from 01.07.2007, i.e., the date from which persons junior to him have been granted such fixation of pay, along with consequential benefits arising therefrom. 2. The facts on which the relief as indicated above is sought to rest reveal that the applicant joined the services of the second respondent on 23.05.1996 as a member of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS). As mentioned above, he retired on superannuation on 31.12.2007 as Under Secretary. DOPandT, the first respondent, issued select list of selection grade of CSS (Deputy Secretary) for the year 2007, duly approved ...