PKMG LAW CHAMBERS

ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS

MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY, 2011

CHIEF ADVISER

Mr. Pradeep K. Mittal B.Com., LL.B., FCS,

Central Council Member The Institute of Company Secretaries of India

E-mail: pkm171@yahoo.com 9811044365

SEBI LAWS

Mr. C M Bindal FCS

Company Secretary in Practice – Jaipur E-mail : cmbindal@yahoo.com,

9414962454

INCOME TAX

Mr. Himanshu Goyal B.Com., LL.B., ACA,

E-mail: himanshu.goyal@vedjainassociates.com

9899566764

VEDIC ASTROLOGY

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal

Practicing Chartered Accountant E-mail: peekay161@yahoo.com

9811300732

HONORARY ASSOCIATE

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar M.Com. LL.B., Ph.D, PGDPIRL, FICWA, FCS

2

3

4

5

6

SEB/SECURITIES LAWS BY SHRI C.M.BINDAL - 9414962454

NOTIFICATIONS/CIRCULARS/REGULATIONS/RULES:

� Filing offer documents under SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2009; Circular No.CFD/DIL/9/2010, dated 13th October, 2010.

� Decision taken in SEBI Board Meeting; Press Release No. 231/2010, dated 25th October, 2010.

� Trading Rules and shareholding in dematerialized mode; Circular No.SEBI/Cir/ISD/2/2010, dated 26th October, 2010.

� European style stock options; Circular No.CIR/DNPD/6/2010,

dated 27th October, 2010.

� Compliance by portfolio managers; Circular No.IMD/DF/16/2010, dated 2nd November, 2010.

� Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2010; Notification No. LAD-NRO/GN/2010-11/19/26456, dated 12th November, 2010.

� Display of details by stock brokers; Circular No. MIRSD/9/2010, dated 4th November, 2010.

� Facilitating transactions in mutual fund schemes through the

stock exchange infrastructure; Circular No.IMD/DF/17/2010, dated 9th November, 2010.

LEGAL CASES:

� SHRI GANPATI PANCHAYATAN SANSTHAN TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA, (2010) 99 CLA 249 (BOM.): The Bombay High Court observed that on the analogy of Income-tax Act or principle of Hindu Law a demat account cannot be allowed to be operated in the name of artificial persons such as unregistered trusts and deities because operation of such account required personal skill, judgment and supervision. However, a trustee can always open

such an account in his individual name(s) without brining in the gods and goddesses. Thus, the High Court dismissed a petition

7

holding that demat account cannot be allowed to be opened and operated in the name of an artificial person/deities of gods and goddesses. [S. 2(1)(a) read with bye-law 9.1 of National Securities Depository Ltd.; Bye-laws, 2005]

� SECURITIES & EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA V. CHANDI DAS GHOSH, (2010) 99 CLA 253 (CAL.): The registration fee can legitimately be calculated and realized from the share-brokers only when turnover data is furnished or made available. It cannot,

therefore, be contended that any scheme or notice asking for turnover data, without registration fee, is void or contrary to Stock-broker Regulations. Sections 11 and 12 are wide enough empowering the SEBI Board to frame, amongst other scheme to fulfill the object of the Act, such schemes as would be consisted with extant rules, regulations and provisions of the Act. The scheme providing for furnishing turnover data is not inconsistent with any of the said provisions. However, the portion of the scheme providing for levy of registration fee at a flat rate of .01 per cent in case of default of furnishing turnover data within time has been rightly held by the trial Judge to be ultra vires the Regulations. When the Regulations framed under law provides for

panel measure to achieve same object, it is simply not permissible to frame schemes in conflict with the existing legal provisions. The Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta disposed of a writ appeal agreeing with the trial Judge. [Section 11 read with regulation 10 and schedule 3 of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers Regulations, 1992 and SEBI (Interest Liabilities Regulation) Scheme, 2004]

INCOME TAX – BY SH.HIMANSHU GOYAL - 9899566764

� Maharashtra Academy of Engg. And Educational Research vs.

CIT (2010) 133 TTJ 706 : CIT not to enter the area of

investigation of source of income and also application of income, so

that the amount of correct exempt income be not prejudged.

� DCIT vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd. (2010) 133 TTJ(Lucknow) (UO)

89 Without pointing out any defect in the books regularly maintained

by the AO on account of cost of construction on the basis of report of

DVO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A)

8

� M.Mahendra vs. ACIT(2010) 133 TTJ(Chennai)(UO) 98

admissions made during the survey cannot be made the basis of

addition.

� CIT vs. Smt. Pushpawati (2010) 235 CTR(Del) 467 Provision of

s.64(1)(vi) do not cover the case of assets transferred to trust for

the benefit of daughter in law.

� CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Goel (2010) 235 CTR (Chhattisgarh) 516

Payment through pay order, banker’s cheques etc. are not covered

u/s 40A(3)

� ITO vs. Mohinder Nath Sehgal & Sons (2010) 6 ITR

138(Chandigarh) No provision for taking value assessed by DVO,

only full value of consideration

� ITO vs. Ashish Navnitlal Shah (2010) 6 ITR (Trib) 170 (Ahmd)

Sale of units beyond three months

� ITO vs. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 6 ITR (trib)

182 (Ahmd) Sec 50C not applicable to purchaser.

� Muneer Khan vs. ITO (2010) 41 SOT 504 (Hyd) It is not

necessary that the same funds must be used for the purpose of

sec.54F

� Late Smt. Laxmibai Karanpuria vs. ACIT (2010) 7

taxmann.com 113(Indore-ITAT) No asstt. Can be framed on a

dead person.

� ACIT VS. ITW india (P.) Ltd. (2010) 40SOT 348(Hyd) Section

263 assessee not eligible to claim a new benefit

� N.G.Rao vs. DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ (Del)797 section 271(1)(c)

assessee claiming exemption on two accommodations under section

10(13A) no penalty under section 271(1)(c)

� DDIT(Ex) vs. Siciety for The Poor And Oppressed (2010) 5

ITR(trib.) 388 (Hyderabad) motor vehicle purchased and

registered in name of president exemption cannot be denied.

� CIT vs. Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Thane Belapur

association) (2010) 235 CTR (Bom) 548 Mutuality Income is

9

not generated from the outsiders, therefore the

surplus represents income over expenditure falls within the purview

of doctrine of mutuality and not exigible to tax

� CIT vs. Smt. Alka Bhosle (2010)235 CTR (Bom) 565 Units were

sold beyond a period of three months from the record date

transaction outside the net of s. 94(7)

� Tamilnadu warehousing Corporation vs. ACIT (Mad) 328 ITR

280 No permission from COD for state owned undertalings.

� CIT vs. Kishan Chand (P&H) 328 ITR 173 notice through

affixture not valid if no other mode of service tried

� CIT vs. Naveen Gera (2010)(DEL) 328 ITR 516- opinion of

valuation officer no basis for addition

� CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. (DEL) (2010) 328 ITR 44 revised

return filed, finding of inadvertent error, no penalty leviable

� CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society (P&H) (2010) assessee running

school, eligible for exemption under section 11

� DIT (exemption) vs. Maharaja Agrasen Technical Education

Society (DELHI) 328 ITR 551 money advanced for purchase of

land , eligible for exemption under section 11

� CIT vs. Smt. Suraj Devi (2010)(DELHI) 328 ITR 604 no

evidence of payment over and above consideration mentioned in

regd. Purchase deed, no addition on the basis of DVO report

� CIT vs. Xerox Modicorp Ltd. (2010) 47 DTR (DEL)1 Notice after

expiry of four years. On the view taken by CIT(A) in a later year not

sustainable.

� Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT(2010) 47 DTR(Ker)265

Section 115JB not applicable to electricity companies.

� Satnam Overseas Ltd. And Another vs. Addl. CIT(2010) 329

ITR 237(DEL) Reassessment on change of opinion, notice to be

quashed.

10

CENTRAL EXCISE LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� When a penalty has been imposed on the partnership firm, no

separate penalty is warranted against the individual partners of the firm as there no provision in the Central Excise Act especially when, partner ship firm has no separate legal existence in the eyes of law. CCE Vs. Mohammed Farookh 2010(259) ELT 179 (Guj).

� The Tribunal has set aside the demand of excise duty on the ground

of clandestine removal of goods not accepting the “dharmakanta slips” (the only evidence relied upon by the Department before Tribunal) but before the court in a criminal proceedings, the department is relying upon host of other materials for clandestine removal of goods, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by the High Court. Ludhiana Steel Ltd Vs. CCE 2010259) ELT 198 (P&H).

� The economic slow down cannot be a ground for setting aside the

levy of penalty and interest by the Tribunal so long as the existing law do not permit. CCE Vs Sanghi Industries Limited 2010(259) ELT

221 (Bom). � In order that the excise duty is paid on MRP basis under Section 4A

of the Central Excise Act, the goods are (i) excisable, (ii) there is a requirement under Standards of Weights & Measurement Act to declare the price of such goods relating to their MRP on the package, (iii) the central government has specified such goods by notification (iv), valuation of such goods would be as per the declared retail sale price on the packages less the amount of abatement. RCC (Sales) (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(259) ELT 304 (Tri).

� There is always a initial burden on the department to prove that

extended period from six months to five years is invokable and to produce material to show that the assessee was guility of any of those situations visualized in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. However, the observation of the Tribunal since both the units are located in the same range, therefore, the Department must be aware of the circumstances, is wholly untenable in law. The case is remanded to tribunal to decide afresh. CCE Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd 2010(260) ELT 17 (SC).

� The difference between figures in balance sheet and the excise

returns leads to an inference of clandestine removal of goods unless there is a proper and logical explanation offered by the assessee for

such difference. CCE Vs. Marin & Hariss Laboratories Ltd 2010(260) ELT 31 (P&H).

11

� A mere non mention of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for

imposing penalty will not invalide the Show Cause Notice if the proper and specific instances have been cited in the Show Cause Notice to show violation of the provisions of law with respect to removal of goods without proper duty paying documents i.e. Invoices. Avi steel Trades Vs. CCE 2010(260) ELT 43 (Delhi D B).

� Freight in excess has been collected for transportation of finished goods and such excess freight is in the nature of profit and cannot be added to the transaction value so as to attract payment of excise duty on such excess freight. Mercedes Benz Indiam (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(260) ELT 149 (Tri).

� If the case of the assessee has been that the goods were not

chargeable to Central Excise duty. Duty paid at the instance of the department but sequently held that no duty is payable, the party is entitled to refund since the price of finished goods remained same even after when the assessee started paying the excise duty. CCE Vs. Premier Aryco India 2010(260)ELT 158 (Tri).

SERVICE TAX - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� The Punjab & Haryana High Court in their final judgement dated

22.11.2010 (2010 (20) STR 737) has upheld the retrospective levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property by holding that the same transaction may involve two or more events in different aspects

and each of which may be subject to tax. The Writ Petition challenging the levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property has been dismissed.

� The Karnataka High Court has, by way of interim order, stayed the

levy of Service Tax on renting of immoveable property following the interim orders passed by the Delhi and Bombay High Court subject to certain conditions. Maverick Ventures Vs. UOI 2010(20) STR 757 (Kar).

� The appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner who, in turn,

transmitted to the Commissioner (Appeal) and in the process, some

delay has taken (though the appeal was filed in time before Commissioner), the delay is liable tobe condoned and appeal should not have been dismissed as being time barred. MSRTC Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 764.

12

� No penalty is payable by the appellant who was engaged in rendering

the service of preparing and serving food while water electricity and kitchen has been provided by the receiver of service. The Tribunal in the case of Rajeev Kumar Vs. CCE 2009(16) STR 26 has held that activities of maintenance of canteen including furniture, utensilvs, gas, gadgets have been provided by the company itself. The appellant has been engaged only in preparation of food and serving the same. Such service cannot be held to be “outdoor catering service”. Kalsis Kitchenette Vs. CCE 2010 (20) STR 772 (Tri).

� Any documents relied upon by the Department must be supplied to

the assessee failing which, it shall amount to violation of principal of natural justice. If there is any procedural irregularity in availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit by the assessee, Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules permit the Department to ignore such irregularity if there is no dispute about the duty paid character of inputs and its use in the manufacture of duty paid finished goods. Idea Mobile Communication Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 775 (Tri).

� If the Sales Tax or Vat paid on materials which has been used in

providing services under the Service Tax law, then the value of such materials is liable to be excluded from the assessale value while calculating the Service Tax payable. A N Palaniappan Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 781

� If no time period is prescribed for actual utilization of cevant credit

lying in the records of the assessee, no time period can be read into it and the department cannot seek to dis-allow the utilization of such Cenvat Credit after long delay. Capital Transformers (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 782 (GTri).

� The assessee has used technical know for improving the quality of the valves and the service tax paid on fee/royalty payable to the technical know-how supplier, the assessee is entitled to avail the benefit of Service Tax so paid. Kar Mobiles Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 786 Tri.

� The appellant, being a sub-contractor, has taken a specific plea that

the main contractor has discharged the burden of Service Tax and despite such plea having been taken, adjucating authority has not dealt with such plea, the order is liable to be set aside to decide afresh dealing with the specific plea of assessee. BESL Infra Projects Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 798 (Tri).

13

� The movement of semi finished goods and waste within the factory and putting them into recyling unit, does not amount to “Cargo Handling Service” as has been held in the case of S N Uppar & Co Vs. CCE 2008(11) STR 34 (Tri) and relying upon this authority, the Tribunal has partly waived the requirement of pre-deposit as a condition precedent for grant of final hearing of the appeal. BSR & CO Vs. CCE 2010(20) STR 799 (Tri).

COMPANIES ACT 1956 -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� The parties, by consent, create restrictions on their enjoyment of

right as a shareholders and it cannot be argued that since the Section 111A speak of “ free transferability” and, therefore, no

restrictions can be imposed under an Share Purchase Agreement. Messer Holdings Ltd Vs. S M Ruia 2010(98) CLA 325 Bom.

� The company cannot redeem preference shares out of capital

redemption reserves without obtaining sanction of the company court under Section 100 to 103. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd 2010(98)CLA 372 AP.

� If the transferor company is a tenant of the premises and is

subsequently merged with the transferee company, it would amount to sub-letting of premises to the transferee company where the same is without the consent of the landlord. However, the transferor

company is the landlord of the premises and merges with the transferee company, then the transferee company becomes the landlord of the premises. Speedline Agencies Vs. T Tanes & Co Ltd 2010(98) CLA 397 (SC).

� In a case where there are questions of correctness or legality of a

party acquiring ownership of shares of deceased shareholder, the same cannot be determined by the CLB and can only be decided by civil court in a civil suit. J R Srinivas Vs. Sri Gururaja Enterpries (P) Ltd 2010(98) CLA 460 Kar.

� In case of proposed Scheme of Merger of a transferor company with the transferee company also envisages alteration in the capital clause of the memorandum and articles of the association of the transferee cojpany and the issue relating thereto have been dealt in the company petition, and if the court is satisfied that all these changes are proposed to be effected as an integral part of the scheme, the approval granted by the shareholders at the meeting to the scheme as whole amounts to approval to all such incidental proposal and no separate procedure is required to be followed as

14

envisaged under Section 17,31, 94 and 97 of the Companies Act, Avani Petrochem (P) Ltd 2010(98) CLA 465 (Guj).

� The petition for winding up petition will not maintainable as the

company Court cannot be reduced as a debt collecting agency if there is a bonafide dispute about the pay ability of the amount by the parties. The winding up petition cause severe prejudice to the reputation and goodwill of the parties and therefore, the company court should be very cautious while allowing company petition . IBA Health India (P) Ltd Vs. Info Drive Systems 2010(99) CLA 149 (SC).

� The existing company is in the name of “NNE Pharmplan (P) Ltd” and

subsequently another company with a name “ CGMP Pharma Plan (P) Ltd” has been incorporated. The petition under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by NNE Pharmaplan (P) Ltd has been allowed by the Regional Director. The same was challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court has upheld the order of RD directing M/s CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd to delete the word “ pharmaplan” from its corporate name. CGMP Pharmaplan (P) Ltd Vs. RD 2010(99) CLA 193 DHC.

� Where proposed statement to be circulated by a shareholder in the

Annual general meeting under Sectin 188 of the Companies Act, only aims at needless publicity for demafatory matter, the application filed by the applicant company under sub-section (5) of the Section 188 of the Companies Act, 1956 is maintainable and the Company Law Board is within its rights to allow the application dispensing such circulation and the directing the company not to circulate. Jiji Antony Vs. JRG Securities Ltd 2010(99) CLA 264 CLB.

CORPORATE LAWS -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� Where valuable rights of the accused to get the sample tested as per Section 24 of Insecticides Act, 1968 has been violated due to negligence of the officer of the government who has filed a criminal complaint as no testing of sample is possible, such criminal complaint is liable to be qushed on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr PC by the High Court. Gupta Chemicals (P) Ltd Vs. State of Rajasthan 2010(7) SCC 735 SC.

� While filing an appeal before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the

DRAT has no power to reduce the amount below 25%, as prescribed by the DRT, as a condition precedent for hearing of an appeal by DRAT. In other words, no appeal before DRAT would be maintainable unless 25% of the amount for which decree has been passed is

15

deposited as a condition for hearing of an appeal before DRAT. Satavol Venkat Vs. UOI 2010(171) DLT 253.

� In a writ petition where relief is for direction to GAIL to ensure

continued gas supply at the changed address at Firozabad in UP, writ petition at New Delhi Court shall not be maintainable just because the GAIL has a Corporate Office/HO at New Delhi – since the entire cause of action has arisen at Firozabad – outside the jurisdiction of Courts at New Delhi. Millenium Glass Industries Vs. GAIL 2010(173) DLT 333.

� Merely the cheque has been deposited by the Payee at its bank at

New Delhi and also because the legal notice under Section 138 NI Act has been issued from New Delhi, the same will not confer jurisdiction upon courts at New Delhi. The location of payor’s bank will determine the jurisdiction where the criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act needs to be filed. Mahika Enterprises Vs. State 2010(173) DLT 361. DHC.

� By way of a writ petition, the High Court will not ordinarily interfere

with the bidding process for allotment of contract by a Public Sector Company unless the bidding process of totally arbitrary and clear

case of malafides has been attributed by the Petitioner against the Principal. Larsen & Toubro Ltd Vs. UOI 2010(173) DLT 428 (Delhi DB).

� The assignment of debt by one bank in favour of another bank is

permissible and therefore all contracts of assignment of debts are legal and the assignee bank is entitled to substitution in place of the assignor in proceedings relating to companies in liquidation pending in the company court. ICICI Bank ld Vs. OL 2010( 99) CLA 160 SC.

� The Section 14 of the Securitisation Act does not confer any powers

upon Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate any

powers to adjudicate the claim or counter claim of the parties but only infests a liability to assist the secured creditors in taking possession of the secured assets after the order of resumption has been passed under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. Union Bank of India Vs. State of Maharashtra 2010(99) CLA 215 (Bom).

� In case a cheque has been issued from the personal account by a

person to discharge the debts or liability of the company or third party, who owe the money to the party, the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act shall not be maintainable since the requirement of Section 138 is that (a) there should be debt payable (ii) debtor must have issued the cheque from his account (iii) such

cheque has been dishonoured and a notice under Section 138 of NI

16

Act has been served. P J Agro Tech Ltd Vs. Water Base Ltd 2010(99) CLA 30 (SC).

� In the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act for dishonour of

cheque, it must be specifically allege the manner in which they are responsible for the affairs of the company and also place on record such materials that such Directors, who are roped in the complaint as an accused persons, were in charge and responsible for the day to day business of the company as the provisions of Section 138 of NI Act have to be strictly construed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

dismissed the complaint. Central Bank of India Vs. Asian Global Ltd 2010(99) CLA 34 SC.

CIVIL LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� If there is no specific denial by one party to the case set up by the

other party as required under Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, the pleadings are taken to be admitted and there is no further evidence required to prove the case. Asha Kapoor Vs. Hari Om Sharda 2010(171) DLT 743. DHC.

� Where the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal passes an order

directing pre-deposit of an amount, the order cannot be faulted by contending that the order is bad in law since amount has not been determined by the DRAT. No writ petition is maintainable to challenge the order of DRAT. Indian Bank Vs. lue Jaggers Estate Ltd 2010(98) CLA 424 SC.

� In case a government employee has over-stayed in the premises allotted to him, the government has no right to recover the charges for over-stay (due to transfer of services from one place to another) from his salary, the only remedy is to invoke proceedings before Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act and seek an order of recovery of amount. Syed Azar Ahmed Vs. Northern Railway 2010(174) DLT 306.

� In case of inconsistency between the provisions of Transfer of

Property Act & Code of Civil Procedure on the one hand and the provisions of Securitisation Act on the other hand, on the subject of redemption of mortgaged property, the provisions of Securitisation

Act, being special provisions, shall prevail over the provisions of Transfer of Property Act and CPC. Ram Murty Pyara Lal Vs. Central Bank of India 2010(174) DLT 314 (Delhi DB).

� If the principal lessor has given a right of only residential use of the

premises to the lessee, then the lessee, in turn, cannot give to the

17

sub-lessee the right of commercial user of the premises. No one can transfer a better title than what he himself has. Trilochan Singh Vs. Daya Shankar 2010(174) DLT 266. Delhi HC.

� A lease of immoveable property can be for fixed period or it can one

from month to month basis. In the former case, it determines by efflux of time and in the later case, (a month to month tenancy), it determines by a termination under Section 106 of the TP Act. Upon determination of the lease, it is a statutory obligation of the erstwhile

lesse to put the lessor in possession of the property and the corresponding right of the lessor to be put back in possession of the property. Trilochan Singh Vs. Daya Shankar 2010(174) DLT 266. Delhi HC.

� It is a golden rule of law of evidence that the party who set up a case,

must establish the same with cogent evidence by virtue of principle. Hira Singh Vs. Delhi Wakf Board 2010(173) DLT 337.

� The Bank is free to inititate recovery proceedings against the

guarantor without initiating any proceedings against the principal borrower and the action of the High Courts in restraining the Bank

from recovery proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13 (4) of Securitisation Act against the Gurantor, was set aside by the Supreme Court relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Bank of Bihar Vs. Damodar Prasad 1969 (I) SCR 620 wherein it was held that Bank need not necessary always first proceed against the principal borrower and then thereafter against the guarantor. United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & others 2010(99) CLA 14 (SC).

IPR LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� As per Section 134 of Trade Marks Act, the aggrieved party can file a

suit at a place where they are carrying on their business. Arcgue Comic Publications Vs. Purple Creations (P) Ltd 2010(172) DLT 234 (Delhi DB).

ARITRABITION LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� In a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, for challenging

the Award made by the Arbitrator, it is not necessary to frame issues and invite evidence to be led by the parties as the provisions of CPC

does not apply since there is no full-fledged trail by the court. Fiza

18

Developers & Ingter-Trade (P) Ltd Vs. AMCI (P) Ltd 2010(98) CLA 433 SC.

� In a proceedings under Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 for seeking to set aside the Award passed by the Arbitrator, it is permissible for such a party to have placed on records such materials or evidence on record (by way of amendment of petition or placing on record such materials) for getting the Award set aside which is not wholly irrelevant. Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd 2010( 99) CLA 1 (SC).

CONSUMER CASES -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� If the supply of electrical energy is not provided in time as agreed

upon, there can be a case for deficiency of service. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the person would include the company and, therefore, the company would be entitled to file a complaint for deficiency of service. Karnatak Power Transmission Vs. Ashok Iron Works (P) Ltd 2010( 99) CLA 184 SC.

INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� It is for the claimant to prove that he was the workmen by leading cogent evidence to establish the employer and employee relations to reclaim relief – which cannot be established by some challans and bills to show receipt of goods for and on behalf of employer. The employer cannot be called upon to prove that the puproted workmen was not his employee. Prem Nath Yadav Vs. Chandra Bose 2010(174) DLT 352.

Your suggestions and contributions are of great importance to us. Please give us your FEEDBACK, so that this Bulletin may be made

of real use to you. Please write to us with your views and contributions at: pkm171@yahoo.com

DISCLAIMERS All reasonable care has been exercised in compilation of information in this report. However, the PKMG Law Chambers, its members on panel(s) or advisors or employees shall not in any way be responsible for the consequences of any action taken on the basis of reliance upon the contents. This report has been sent to you upon your being a client or associate of the PKMG Law Chambers or on the recommendation/suggestion of any of our client or associates. This not a spam mail.

19

CIRCULATION BY This Report is circulated by Shri Praveen K. Mittal for PKMG Law Chambers, 171 Chitra Vihar, Delhi-110 092, Phones: (011) 22540549, 22524229, 9810826436, 9811044365

Email:pkm171@yahoo.com

20