PKMG LAW CHAMBERS

ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS

MONTHLY REPORT FOR AUGUST, 2010

CHIEF ADVISER

Mr. Pradeep K. Mittal

B.Com., LL.B., FCS,

Advocate Central Council Member

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India E-mail: pkm171@yahoo.com

9811044365

SALES TAX & VAT

Mr. Rakesh Garg

FCA Practicing Chartered Accountant

E-mail: sahaigarg@hotmail.com 9810216270

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

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

NOTIFICATIONS/CIRCULARS/REGULATIONS/RULES: � Anti-money laundering/combating financing terrorism – In addition of

obligations of securities market intermediaries additional requirements have been prescribed and existing requirements have been clarified. ISD/AML/2/2010 dated 11th June, 2010.

� Corporate debt – Based on the assessment of the allocation and the

utilization of the limits to FIIs for investments in corporate debt, it has been decided to allocate the unutilized limits. CIR/IMD/FII/3/2010 dated 11th June, 2010.

� Mutual funds – Certification programme for sale and/or distribution of

mutual fund products has been devised. IMD/DF/5/2010 dated 24th June, 2010.

� ASBA – It has been decided to make ASBA bid-cum-application forms

available for download and printing from websites of the stock exchanges which provide electronic interface for ASBA (applications supported by blocked amount) facility. CIR/CFD/DIL/7/2010 dated 13th July, 2010.

LEGAL CASES:

� VISHNU PRAKASH BAJPAI v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD

OF INDIA, (2010) 97 CLA 22 (DEL.): Where a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) is filed by the petitioner for quashing of a complaint under sub-section (1) of section 24 and section 27 on the ground that he was neither a director nor a person in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business, but has himself placed on record the document filed by the company itself claiming that the petitioner was not only one of its promoters but was also one of its directors, the question as to whether the petitioner was a director at the relevant time or not needs to be adjudicated during trial and no view in this regard could be taken by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. [SEBI Act, 1992, sections 24(1) and 27 read with regulations 5, 68 and 73 and 74 of SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 and section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]

INCOME TAX – BY SH.HIMANSHU GOYAL - 9899566764

� TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS (2010)

5

324 ITR 247 (Delhi) : Recovery of tax- Appeal – Stay of recovery of tax. CBDT instruction- Assessed income substantially higher than returned income. CBDT instruction 1222 not superseded by Instruction 1914 of 1993. Demand must be stayed. Income Tax Act, 1961.

� COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SPORTKING INDIA LIMITED (2010) 324 ITR 283 (Del) : Industrial undertaking – Special deduction – Sum received from insurance company as compensation for goods destroyed by fire. Is derived from industrial undertaking and to be included in profits of business for purposes of deduction. Income Tax Act, 1961, s.80-IA.

� COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS (2010) 40 DTR (Del) 236 : Accounts – Rejection – Non-maintenance of stock register and GP rate. Tribunal noted that the AO had not found any defect in the books of accounts and maintenance of stock register was not feasible considering the nature of the business of the assessee since fabric was measured in metres and was thereafter stitched to make garments which had to be counted in pieces. As regards failure of the assessee to produce the persons to whom payments were made for fabrication, embroidery, dyeing, finishing etc. the AO was at liberty to summon all of them in case he wanted to verify the genuineness of the payments. Failure of the assessee to produce those persons could not have been a ground for rejecting accounts under s.145. Both, the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) have accepted the explanation given by the assessee regarding fall in GP rate. No perversity is pointed out in the finding of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises.

� Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. indo American Jewellery Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 386 : Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 92C & 92CA; Income Tax Rules , 1962 r. 10B(1)(e) In favour of : Assessee.

� Transfer pricing. Computation of arm’s length price. Selection of comparables under TNMM. Assessee company engaged in export of jewellery. Assessee earns a net margin of 5.38 per cent on sale to the AEs and net margin of 1.77 per cent on sale to non-AEs.

� Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut Vs. Mool Chand Sharbati Devi Hospital Trust(2010) 190 Taxman 338(ALL.) : Section11, read with Section 2(15), of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Charitable or religious trust. Exemption of income from property held under Assessment year 1985-86. Assessee was a charitable trust established for purpose of running hospitals, nursing homes, etc. for medical aid to general public During relevant assessment yea, it spent certain amount on construction of a hospital building on a land taken on lease from another society. Whether amount so spent by assessee was for charitable purposes, and, therefore, assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11. Held, yes.

6

� HARYANA STATE COUNSELLING SOCIETY VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 40 DTR ( P & H) 169 : Petitioner society’s application for exemption under s. 10 (23C)(iv) rejected by the Chief CIT on the ground that the society had earned a huge profit/surplus and the real nature of its activities was commercial and with a profit motive – Not justified. In view of the fact that the petitioner society is set up by the Government of Haryana, neither the Government of Haryana nor the petitioner society has accumulated some profit, does not mean that the petitioner society is not achieving its object for which it was established. Merely because the society has earned some profit, does not make the society disentitle for the exemption. Chief CIT directed to decide the petitioner society’s application afresh.

� GOYAL IMPEX & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 40 DTR (Del)(Trib) 278 : Income Tax Act, 1961, ss.80HHC, Expln. (baa) & 263;In favour of : revenue with remand Revision – Erroneous and prejudicial order. Non-observance of Tribunal’s directions. Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the allowability bof deduction under s. 80HHC afresh in view of amendments made by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 retrospectively. AO however, did not consider the amendments but allowed the deduction. Since AO did not consider the amendments inspite of specific direction of the Tribunal, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT was justified in revising the order. CIT did not traverse beyond the issues raised in the second show cause notice. AO directed to recomputed the deduction following decision of the Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports Vs. ITO (2009) 126 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 289 : (2009) 29 DTR (Mumbai)(SB)(Trib) 153

� CIT VS Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) : Where the nature of the business is such, that stock account is not possible, low gross profit by itself may not justify the addition merely on the ground, that the assessee was not able to produce some of the persons, who had undertaken service for it for fabrication, embroidery, dyeing and finishing work for assessee’s business of manufacturing ready made garments. When the assessee had kept vouchers for purchases, bills for sales and also enough accounts regarding the stock handled by it, there was really no justification for rejection of accounts for non-production of the service providers.

� Jurisdiction on matters not covered by the recorded reasons. An issue that is decided in Jay Bahart Maruti Ltd. V. CIT (201) 324 ITR 289 (Delhi) is whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to entertain a matter which was not a ground for issue of notice under Section 147. It related to disallowance of relief under Section 80-I on an amount of interest which was treated as business income, but it was felt that it

7

should be assessable as income from other sources. This was not the ground on which notice was issued. The High Court felt that there was no jurisdiction for dealing with such issues following CIT VS. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)

� COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. D.D. AXLES (P) LTD. (2010) 40 DTR (Del) 293 : Search and seizure – Block assessment – Limitation under s. 158BE. Search was conducted on 29th August, 1996 and concluded on 30th August, 1996. A Panchnama was drawn on the 29th August, 1996 when books of accounts and other documents were seized. On 30th Aug., 1996 a restraint order was passed which was extended till 18th Nov. 1996 by another order passed on 28th October, 1996. On 18th Nov., 1996 restraint placed was vacated and another Panchnama was drawn and seizure was made, and the one year time limit for framing the block assessment started from the end of the month i.e. 31st August, 1996 and ended on 31st August, 1997. Since block assessment was framed on 28th Nov., 1997 it was barred by limitation. From 30th August, 1996 when the last Panchnama was drawn till 18th Nov., 1996 when the restraint was vacated nothing else was found and in fact no further search was conducted. Panchnama dt. 18th Nov., 1996 was merely a release order and could not extend the period of limitation. No substantial question of law arises.

CENTRAL EXCISE LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� The Show Cause Notice does not specify the amount which the

department wishes to recover and also does not explain as to why less duty has been paid by the notice, issuance of such Show Cause Notice is not legal, valid and proper notice and it shall amounts to violation of principal of natural justice. The demand is set aside. J K Synthetics Ltd Vs. Union of India 2010(19)STR 295 Delhi High Court.

� If the assessee puts various parts of water filter in a box and affix its brand name on the out container, it does not amount to manufacture of dutiable goods within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act and no excise duty is payable. CCE Vs. Pilot Plastics 2010(19) STR 294.

� If any judicial or quasi judicial authority like Commissioner or

Additional Commissioner passes an order without assigning detailed reasons except saying that the department has a strong case, it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice. The application for waiver pre-deposit dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is liable to be restored for afresh personal hearing by the Commissioner

(Appeal). Century Rayon Vs. UOI 2010(19)STR (Bom)

8

� If the goods has not been entered in the RG-1 Register, it cannot lead to only conclusion that the goods were meant for clandestine removal. The Commissioner and Tribunal have clearly held that there was no mens-rea and, therefore, penalty not imposable. CCE Vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd 2010(255)ELT 349 (P&H).

� The Commissioner (Appeal) before deciding the application for waiver

of pre-deposit is bound to give personal hearing to the appellant in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in 2002(144)ELT 288 and Madras High Court 2001(127) ELT 338. In the absence of

personal hearing, the same was in violation of principles of natural justice and held liable to be set aside. Packwell Plastics (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(255) ELT 409 (Tri).

� The final order passed by the Tribunal or any other quasi-judicial

authorities must be backed by cogent reasons in support of findings arrived at to enable the higher court to examine the thought process of the lower authority – failing which the order is liable to be set aside. CCE Vs. Wartsila India Ltd 2010(254)ELT 406 (Bom).

� The mortar, castable powder, refractory, ramming mass, foundry

flux and chemicals have been used in layer of furnace (which is

capital goods) to be considered as being used for manufacture of final products i.e. capital goods and, therefore, entitled to Cenvat/Modavt Credit. CCE Vs. Steel Strips Alloys. 2010(254)ELT 410(P&H).

� The excisable goods means both dutiable and exempted goods. The

manufacturer using the duty paid inputs for the manufacture of exempted goods which were exported, can seek refund of duty paid on such inputs – since such duty cannot be utilized for payment of excise duty on final products. CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd 2010254)ET 417(HP).

� The documents, both relied upon as well as not relied upon by the Department, are required to be supplied to the noticee. Similarly, cross-examination, where the statement of the witness has been relied upon by the Department, must be allowed to the noticee failing which it shall amounts to violation of principal of natural justice and such order liable to be set aside and quashed. Parmarth Iron (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(255)ELT 496 (All).

SERVICE TAX - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� The society for framers engaged in the business of cutting, loading,

unloading and transporting of sugarcane to factory not covered in C&F

9

Agent service. Ajinkyatara Sahakari Krishi Audyogik Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(19)STR 285 (Tri).

� Provisions of Security Agency Services – Salary of staff and other

infrastructural expenses not liable to be included in the value on which Service Tax paid. No penalty is imposable since the party has already tax on commission charges levied from the client. Gujarat Intelligence Agency Vs. CCE 2010(19) STR 270.

� If the principal employer has given a composite contract involving various

taxable services – then it is not permissible to break the contract for the purpose of levy of service tax in different head and start recovery under the different heads from the assessee. Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(19) STR 259. (Tri).

� The importer of consulting engineering services has paid service tax as a

person liable to pay the service tax. The service tax so paid could be availed as a cenvat credit by the party as deemed service provider. Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(19) STR 252 (Tri).

� Service Tax paid on house-keeping and garden maintenance would be

permissible as a cenvat credit. Rane TRW Steering Syustems (P) Ltd Vs. CCE 2010(19)STR 251 (Tri).

� The recovery of service tax cannot be made by merely issuing a letter. A

show cause notice is must. The order passed without complying the principal of natural justice is liable to be set aside and quashed. CC Vs. TNT India (P) ltd 2010(19)STR 5 (Kar).

� The Delhi High Court once again in the case Home Solutions Retail Ltd Vs.

Union of India 2010(19) STR 3 (Delhi) has restrained from recoverying the service tax on renting of immoveable property with an observation that in case the writ petition would be dismissed in future, the petitioner would be liabel to pay the with interest and penalty.

� The appellant is entitled to stay on the recovery of service tax paid on GTA

for outward transportation of final products as the judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd Vs. Commissioner 2009(15) STR 23 (Tri) has been stayed.

COMPANIES ACT 1956 -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� In a Scheme of Arrangement under the Companies Act, 1956, the view of

the creditors have to be ascertained before the company court can permit the reduction of share premium amount which may ultimately amounts to reduction of share capital because of which interests of creditors are affected and, therefore, the court directed issuance of notice to Creditors and also publication of citation in the newspaper Globsyn Infotech Ltd and Globsyn Technologies Ltd 2010(97)CLA 2 Calcutta.

10

� Where a Scheme of Arrangement under Section 391 to 394 Companies Act, 1956 postulates sanction of the court for reduction of share capital under Section 100 which enabled the shareholders of the company to retain money so released and to advance the same money as unsecured loans to the company and these two transactions i.e. reduction of share capital and conversion thereof as unsecured loan, constituted reciprocal arrangements and since there was substantial compliance with the requirements of sanction of both reduction of share capital as well as scheme of compromise and arrangement, the Scheme of Arrangement is liable to be sanctioned. Al–Ahali Business Trade Links (P) Ltd 2010(97)CLA 6 (Kerala).

� Where a petitioner files a Scheme of Merger/Amalgamation, it must

disclose of such facts which even remotely connected with the merits of the case. The petitioner company concealed the fact that the petition for removal and appointment of directors and change in shareholding pattern is pending before Company Law Board and, therefore, petition for sanctioning of Scheme of Amalgamation is liable to be cancelled on this short ground alone. Nu-Line India (P) Ltd 2010 (97) CLA 41 (HP).

� In case the Regional Director has taken a plea in the Affidavit so filed

before the Company Court considering the scheme of sanction of amalgamation, that the office of two directors have fallen vacant under Section 283(1)(h) for violation of Section 295 of Companies Act, 1956, this fact shall not preclude the Court from sanctioning the Scheme as even if the presence of these two director is not counted, yet the members present at the Board Meeting, constituted majority to sanction the Scheme of Amalgamation. Sintex Industries Ltd 2010(96)CLA 77 Gujarat High Court.

� The Regional Director, in his affidavit filed before the Company Court, has

opposed the scheme which envisages creation of “business restructuring reserve” from out of the security premium account, to the extent of 50% and to use the said reserve for “re-structuring expenses”. The opposition of RD was due to alleged violation of Accounting Standards and Section 211 of the companies Act, the High Court following the judgment of Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd 1996 (23)CLA 1 Bombay high Court in Hindalco Industries Ltd 2010(93)CLA 58, the Gujarat High Court ordered sanctioning of Scheme. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd 2010(97)CLA 96 (Kar).

� The Corporate Veil can be lifted where there are prima-facie grounds of

frauds, mis-representation and diversion of funds so as to use the corporate personality for the purpose of perpetrating fraud or improper conduct. Atul Gupta Vs. Trident Projects Ltd 2010(154) Company Cases 474 Delhi High Court.

� In a winding up petition, where the respondent has denied its liability with

cogent reasons and also debt appears to be prima-facie time barred, the winding up petition will not be maintainable. VSL India (P) Ltd Vs. V Manickam Engineers (P) Ltd 2010(154) Company Cases 389 Madras High Court.

11

� The winding up petition against the guarantor company would be maintainable where the guarantor fails or neglects to pay the debts of principal borrower. Conventry Spring and Engineers Co Ltd Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd 2010(97)CLA (Snr) 2 Cal.

� The failure to reply to statutory notice does not necessarily mean that the company is unable to pay its debt. Where there is a arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties for resolution of disputes, the yet the company court, may admit the company petition for winding up. Ritika (P) Ltd Vs. Omax Construction Ltd 2010 (153) Company Cases 574 Delhi High Court.

� Where the statutory notice has come back unserved with the remarks “

not known” though the notice was dispatched at the address as shown in the records of ROC, there shall be deemed service of notice. Cavendish Shipping Ltd Vs. Falcon Marine Management (P) Ltd 2010(2) Company Law Journal 194 (Bombay).

CORPORATE LAWS -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� The suit for recovery of money has been filed against the company and its

guarantors where the company is in liquidation and the main prayer in te suit is for passing a money decree against the guarantor. The suit for recovery of money would continue and not to abate just because the company is in liquidation. Paratp Bhausaheb Vs. State Bank of India 2010(154) Company Cases 212(Bom).

� In case the court has sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation, it does not

absolve the directors of the company from being prosecuted for any violation or contravention of law. Nirmay Properties (P) Ltd 2010(96)CLA 277. Guj.

� The Secured Creditor must follow the guidelines prescribed by the Reserve

Bank of India from time to time on classification of assets and accordingly classify the account of the defaulter in respect of debt as being termed “non-performing assets” before proceeding under Section 13(2) of Securitisation Act. Badugu Vijayalkshmi Vs. State Bank of India 201096)CLA 292 (AP).

� The cheque may be presented any number of times during its validity but

the cause of action to file complaint will arise only when notice has been issued to the drawer of the cheque. Tameshwar Vaishnav Vs. Ramvishal Gupta 2010(29)CLA 43 SC.

� If a secured creditor has taken any action under Section 13(4) of

Securitisation Act, then the borrower cannot move the Debt Recovery

12

Tribunal under Section 17 of DRT Act as the Securitisation Act is a complete code. However, the High Court in a petition under Article 226 can definitely intervene. Sravan Dall Mill (P) Ltd Vs. Central Bank of India 2010(96)CLA 488 AP.

� After service of notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation Act upon the

borrower, it is not obligatory on the part of the secured creditor to take immediate action under Section 13(4) and any delay in taking under Section 13(4) is not fatal to the right of the secured creditor and the court cannot be restrain the bank from taking any further action as provided under Section 13(4) of Act. Omeshwar Baldwa Vs. Vasavi Coop Urban Bank Ltd 2010(96)CLA 11 AP.

CIVIL LAWS - BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� If the maximum time is prescribed for filing a petition, appeal or

application and there is no provision for allowing any condonation of delay, then the court or judicial authority or any other authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the maximum period prescribed under the law. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. 2010(5)SCC 23.SC.

� In a petition under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for

appointment of Arbitrator, if on prima-facie reading, it is found that the claim is hopelessly barred by time, the court may not appoint arbitrator. Prasar Bharti Vs. Maa Communication 2010(167)DLT 559.Delhi

� The application under Section 340 Cr PC for filing false affidavit or making

false statement on oath or filing forged and fabricated documents, filed by one of the parties as a pressure tactics, need not be decided at a preliminary stage but normally to be decided at the time final decision of the suit. Punjab Tractors Ltd Vs. International Tractors Ltd 2010(167) DLT 490.Delhi.

� The procedure is handmaid of justice and the courts of bound to follow the procedure prescribed by code of civil procedure. The individual courts do not have any power to throw the procedure prescribed by CPC and evolve its own procedure in the name of rendering justice. The long drawn trial of the case cannot be permitted. Opera Global (P) Ltd Vs. Travel Planners (P) Ltd 2010(169) DLT 271.DHC. DB.

� The courts should not allow their process to be abused by one of the

parties just to simply prolong the litigation. The plea which is palpably unsustainable cannot be permitted so as to simply lengthen the litigation. Vivek Narayan Pal Vs. Sumitra Pal 2010(169) DLT 443 Delhi DB.

� No party can be allowed to give different sales figures (a) at the time of

submitting tender to the government department (b) to the Registrar of

13

Companies (c) to the Income Tax authorities. Otik Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd Vs. Indian Railway Catering 2010(169) DLT 459.Delhi HC.

� If the amendment of pleadings proposes to fundamentally change the

nature of case and at the same time withdraw the admissions made, the same amendment to the pleadings cannot be permitted. Sidharth Sareen Vs. Hira Realtors (P)Ltd 2010(168)DLT 621 Delhi DB.

� If the original documents appears to be in possession of the opposite party

and such party denies such possession, then the other party is entitled to file certified copy or photocopy of documents by way of secondary evidence. Mangat Ram Vs. Ashok Kr 2010(168)DLT634.Delhi.

� The liability to pay stamp duty is on the lessee in the absence of any contract to the contrary. If the property, which is subject matter of litigation between the parties, has been sold during the pendancy of litigation, the court would be entitled to restore back the property to the party who is actually entitled to. Mohan Overseas (P) Ltd Vs. Goyal Tin 2010(169)DLT 487 Delhi DB.

� If a driver has been employed by the General Manager of the company, the driver cannot be himself to be driver of the company. In case the General Manager has left the service of the company, the then such driver cannot have any claim against the company. Mudra Communications Ltd Vs. Ganesh Kr 2010(169)DLT.481.Delhi.

� If the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act filed for dishonour of

cheques, does not say or specify in a very clear or specific manner in what way or what manner, the accused person were in charge and responsible for day to day affairs of the company, such complaint is not maintainable – merely writing the words in the complaint that “ accused are in charge and responsible for day to day affairs of the company” are not enough. The principal of vicarious liability of directors must be strictly followed. Manish Parwani Vs. NCT 2010(16) DLT 522. Delhi.

� The procedural defects, which do not go to the root of matter, must be

allowed to be cured by the courts as the courts have to do substantial justice between the parties since the just cause/dispute should not be allowed to be defeated. Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd Vs. Bhartiya Loha Udyog (P) Ltd 2010(167)DLT 237.

CONSUMER CASES -- BY SHRI P K MITTAL

� There cannot be a mechanical or strait jacket approach that each and every case of alleged medical negligence, the case must be referred to experts for evidence. V Krisha Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospitality V Krishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital 2010( CTJ) 868 SC.

14

� The Electricty Company can insist for payment of charges by the new owner, for the period during the which, the previous occupier was in occupation, as a condition precedent for restoration of electricity on application submitted by the new owner/occupier. West Bengal Electricity Distribution Co Ltd Vs. Ravi Jain 2010(CTJ)880 Cal HC.

� In case the documents sent by registered post has been returned negligently with an observation that “ no such addressee, return to sender” the postal department is liable to pay damages to defificency in service. The Writ Petition Petition challenging the order of Consumer Court, was dismissed by the Andhra High Court. 2010CTJ 881.

� If after 15.3.2003, the services have been availed for commercial purposes i.e. supply of electricity, the electricity supply company shall not be liable as it shall not amount to deficiency in service being used

for “commercial purpose”. Mohd Haseeb Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board 2010CTJ 886 (CP). National Commission.

� Despite having made full payment, if the possession of the plot have

not been given to the allottee, it shall amount to deficiency in services, the allottee shall be entitled to possession alongwith 15% interest on the amount deposited. Haryana Urban Development authority Vs. Anil Sehgal 2010 CTJ 898. National Commission.

� If the party having an insurance policy fails to hand over the material documents to the Surveyor and the Surveyor draws an adverse inference, the claim is liabel to be rejected. United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Sangeeta singh 2010(CTJ) 925 NC.

� Where the petitioners has purchased wind electrict generators for the purpose of generation of electricity but there are allegations of shortfall in generation of electricity and the opposite party fails to rectify the defects and the investments of Rs.75 Crores towards purchase of

generator becomes waste, the complaint before the consumer courts shall not be maintainable since the purchase of generators was for commercial purpose. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd Vs. Birla Technologies Ltd 2010 CTJ 928 National Commission.

15

� The purchaser of the flat in a group house building socieity cannot be asked to pay “entry fee” as neither the Delhi Cooperative Socieity Act nor rules made there under permits charging of “Entry Fee” by the Socieity. Smt. Archana Mishra Vs. Puneet Cooperative Group Housing Socieity Ltd 2010(CTJ 98 Competition Appellate Tribunal.

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.

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