Legal Reference Library

In ACIT v. M/s.Nokia Siemens Networks (P) Ltd, the Delhi ITAT held that assessee cannot be treated as Assessee-in-Default for Late payment of TDS due to system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end. In the instant case, assessee was held as assessee-in-default for delay in deposit of TDS. Assessee maintained that the amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee. On appeal, the first appellate authority held in favour of assessee. However, it confirmed the levy of interest for late payment of TDS. Both the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals against the order. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the first appellate authority erred in holding in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ogale Glass Work...

In State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh and Ors., Respondent was Assistant Store Superintendent with Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He stood retired on 30th June, 2009 on attaining age of superannuation. At time of his retirement GPF, leave encashment and 70% of gratuity and pension were cleared, but rest of 30% of gratuity and computation of pension were held up. Stand of Appellants is that there were some discrepancies in the stock in the store of Department and some enquiries were going on as to loss caused to public exchequer. After making representations, when remaining amount of gratuity and pension was not cleared, Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 338 of 2012. However, same was dismissed as withdrawn as Appellants/State authorities, vide order finally, on basis of alleged discrepancies withheld the remaining part of gratuity and pension of the Respondent and, vide order, directed recovery of Rs. 7,26,589/-, from retiral dues payable to Resp...

The apex consumer commission slapped a penalty of 12 percent per annum on real estate major DLF Ltd to be given to 50 buyers for delaying giving possession of their flats in its Panchkula project in Haryana, saying it amounted to "cheating". The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench headed by Justice J M Malik directed the firm to hand over the apartments to buyers as per a list proposed by DLF for scheduled possession, failing which it will have to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 per flat per day to the buyers till the project is completed. The bench noted that the firm had to give the possession of the property within three years including the grace period from the date of letter of allotment till possession was to be given by 2013. After this, it will have to pay interest till the period it has now proposed before the commission, it said. If the flats are not given till the period now proposed by the firm, it will carry a penalty of Rs 5,000 per day till ...

Appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. Versus BOC India Limited & Ors. SLA (C) NO. 29125 OF 2008. The matter relates to a tender issued by Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi to which Sciemed Overseas Inc. & BOC India responded. Subsequently BOC filed a representation to RIMS and then to the High Court complaining that Sciemed Overseas had not fulfilled the conditions of the technical bid. has been awarded the contract when they have not fulfilled the required terms. While the matter was pending before the Hon'ble court, the tender was awarded to Sciemed Overseas. Thereafter when BOC went before the High Court objecting to the award, the same was initially dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. BOC then appealed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending the petitioner informed the court the among other things more than 85% of the work has been completed. Due to thi...

If the symbol Rs/Rs is missing on the package of a product for sale, it could invite penalty under the Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. The offence is compoundable, but the rules are valid, the Delhi High Court stated last week in its judgment, M/s IMS Mercantiles Ltd vs Union of India. In this case, the premises of the firm were inspected by a team of Legal Metrology officials and they found that one of the packets containing rechargeable LED flash lights did not bear the word 'Rs'. The MRP shown on the package merely showed 'MRP 299.00'. The firm was asked to pay Rs 25,000 for the lapse. It challenged the action in the high court and also argued that the rules were against the Legal Metrology Act. The high court dismissed the writ petition.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the power of the provident fund commissioner to impose penalty on employers who delay their contribution is limited by certain considerations. Sections 14A and 32A of the Provident Fund Act grant the authorities the power to recover penalty not exceeding the amount of arrears and specify the rate of penalty. But the authorities have the discretion to reduce it. The argument of the authorities that they cannot reduce the penalty was rejected by the high court in the case, Topcon International Ltd vs RPF Commissioner. The authorities can take into consideration factors like frequency of the delays, the number of days delayed, power cuts, non-realisation of debts by the employer, the delay on the part of the authorities to claim damages and whether the company has been declared sick. The court clarified that though the authorities could reduce the amount of penalty or damages, that discretion could not be used to waive it altogether. Before levying a...

Actual Loss to the investors is not pre-requisite for penalty on non-disclosure under Takeover Regulations The security market regulator imposed penalty of Rs. 4,50,000 on M/s. Khatau Exim Limited (the company) for non compliance with Takeover Regulation, 1997 and Sec. 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, 1992. The company was found guilty for not to make annual filing to the stock Exchanges where the company’s shares were listed in respect of the holdings of the promoters or person(s) having control over the company. The adjudicating officer of SEBI while considering the quantum of penalty relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in SEBI v.  Shri Ram Mutual Fund in which it was ruled that, “penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is established and hence the intention of the parties committing such violation becomes wholly irrelevant…”. Adjudication Order in the matter of M/s. Khatau Exim Limited, ORD...

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006 Supreme Court of India Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: B.P. Singh, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4492 of 1998 PETITIONER: Mcdermott International Inc. RESPONDENT: Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2006 BENCH: B.P. Singh & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T I.A. NOS.2-3 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4492 OF 1998 S.B. SINHA, J : INTRODUCTION Oil was discovered in the Bombay High Region in 1974 whereupon a plan of rapid development of off-shore oil and gas production was embarked by the Government of India through Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). With a view to achieve exploration of production programme, ONGC appointed contractors to fulfill substantial portions of its off-shore construction requirements. Burn Standard Company Limited (for short "BSCL") was interested in the second st...