Delhi Court October 1998 Judgments

K.K. Dhawan Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

J.B. Goel, J.1.   By  this  order, two applications (Crl. M. (M) 1064/98  &  Crl.M.  (M) 3524/97) both for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure (for short 'the Code'), field by Shri K.K. Dhawan  and  Smt. Veena  Dhawan, former being the husband and latter his wife are being  disposed of. 2.   Briefly, the facts are that M/s. Hi-Tech Gears Ltd. New Delhi in their complaint  dated 22nd April, 1997 addressed to The Deputy  Commissioner  of Police  (Crime  & Railway) had lodged a report against  the  two  petitions besides  the  Company M/s. Yogi Pharmacy Ltd. (for short 'YPL')  and  other persons working in the said Company. On the basis of that complaint, a case FIR  No. 994/97 was registered at Police Station, Malviya Nagar, New  Delhi u/Sec. 420/468/471/120-B, IPC.3.   The allegation made are...

Capital Meters Vs. Cimmco International and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)134; [1999]97CompCas73(Delhi); 76(1998)DLT656; 1998(47)DRJ829

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.3, State Bank of Patiala from making any payment of any amount from the bank guarantees dated 13th December, 1995, 15th December, 1995, 23rd December, 1995 and 10th May, 1996 furnished by the said bank to defendants 1 and/or 2. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 which was argued before me and by this order I propose to dispose of the same.2. The plaintiff in pursuance of the contract and purchase order placed by the defendant No.1 on the plaintiff to purchase a specified quantity of single/three phase kwh. meters supplied to the defendant such meters. It was a condition of the purchase order that the plaintiff was to submit performance bank guarantee of the amount of 10% of the purchase order. In terms of the aforesaid contract and purchase order, the plaintiff supplied the meters but the said supply ...

D. Mallesham Goud Vs. State Through C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999CriLJ3864; 1999(48)DRJ611

D.K. Jain, J.1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner challenges the order, dated 9th July, 1998, passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi whereby his fourth application for grant of bail has been dismissed and prays for grant of bail in R.C. No. 3(A)/96-ACU-I/CBI, registered under Section 120B read with Sections 409 and 420, IPC and Sections 7, 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 12th January, 1998 and is in incarceration since then. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution, in the charge-sheet, is that the accused, C.K. Ramakrishnan, Managing Director, National Fertiliser Limited (for short NFL), D.S. Kanwar, Executive Director, (Marketing), NFL, M. Sambasiva Rao, Chief Executive, M/s. Sai Krishna Impex, Hyderabad, Tuncay Alankus and Cihan Karanci, both of ...

D.S. Bindra Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)837; 1999(48)DRJ94

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as Manager of the Punjab & Sind Bank, Ludhiana, was compulsorily retired and that is under challenge. For the purpose of appreciating the questions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to notice a few relevant facts. 2. On the 12th of October, 1993, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that it was contemplated to initiate disciplinary action. 3. On the 5th of November, 1993, a charge-sheet was issued to him. The articles of charge and the statement of allegations are as under:- 'ARTICLES OF CHARGE That Shri D.S.Bindra, Manager(U/S) during his tenure at B/O Sunet Committed fraudulent irregularities as explained in the statement of allegations (Annexure-II). thereforee, Shri D.S.Bindra is charged as under:- 1). That he has failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interests of the Bank. 2). That he has failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligenc...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kailash Apartments P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]243ITR795(Delhi)

R.C. lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for drawing up a statement of the case and referring the following questions of law (for the assessment year 1984-85) for the opinion of the High Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there is only one line of business, namely, construction business with branch at Kuwait and that the management and control is undoubtedly common ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in setting aside the order made under Section 263 of Income-tax Act ?'2. The assessed is a limited company. It is carrying on business as contractors. 'The assessed has business in India as also in Kuwait For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessed filed a return declaring income of Rs. 10,97,626 and claiming brought forward losses to the...

Sudhir Sareen Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT283; [1999]239ITR440(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner is an individual deriving income from salary, house property, business and profession, capital gains and other sources. On October 31, 1995, the petitioner filed his return of income of Rs. 38,06,338 for the assessment year 1995-96. On the basis of the returned income, the tax payable worked out to Rs. 10,93,330 and interest under Sections 234 and 243 (sic) worked out to Rs. 1,99,346. Thus total tax and interest payable by the assessed worked out to Rs. 12,90,676 after giving credit to the tax deducted at source.2. Admittedly, the petitioner had not paid the tax calculated by himself and, thereforee, no proof of payment of this tax was filed along with the return. After scrutinising the return, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax who is the assessing authority issued a notice under Section 139(9) of the Act pointing out that the return was not accompanied by proof of tax, if any, claimed to have been deducted at source and tax on self-assessment 'cla...

Ramesh Chand JaIn Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT460; 1999(48)DRJ578

Vijender Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the order dated 16.4.1991 and the order dated 5.9.1991. Petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer with the respondent-Department, was transferred to the Housing Division No. IV in January'1983. In August'1983 the petitioner was directed to take charge of construction of 237 MIG Dwelling Units in Pocket KG-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi from one A.K Chopra, Junior Engineer, who was at the relevant time in-charge of construction work. 2. It is the case of petitioner that the order transferring Mr. A.K. Chopra was issued by the Superintending Engineer in August'1983 and forwarded to one Radakrishan, Asstt. Engineer directing the petitioner to take over charge from A.K. Chopra. Said Radakrishan endorsed the said order only on 26.8.1983. It is contended before me by Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave on 26.8...

Bishan Singh Didar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN78(Delhi)

Lahoti, J. By this petition, under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), the assessed seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring to following questions of law (as arising out of the assessment year 1996-97) for the opinion of the High Court:' 1. Whether, the Tribunal was correct and justified in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 92,794 on the ground that the assessed had valued its closing stock, on the LIFO method of accounting, (which method of accounting though has been accepted as valid and correct method of accounting for the preceding years as well as for the later assessment years) was not the correct method of accounting and, thus, the addition made was sustainable 2. ln the alternative, and in the event, that the LIFO method of accounting adopted by the assessed could not be regarded as correct method, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law and on facts in not directing the Income Tax...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Jai Bhawani Glass Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC258

1.2 The respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles falling under sub-heading 7007.90 and availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 upto 31-3-1989. Since their declaration of excisable goods during the period 1988-1989 exceeded Rs. 1.5 crores, they were disentitled to the benefit of the said notification from the new Financial year i.e. 1-4-1989. However, Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was amended by Notification No. 119/89, dated 27-4-1989 increasing the overall eligibility limit of clearance of excisable goods from 1.5 crores to 2 crores during the preceding financial year. The appellants' clearances had not exceeded the limit of Rs. 2 crores in the preceding financial year. Hence they became entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. w.e.f. 27-4-1989. Consequently, they became entitle to the benefits of full exemption or concessional rates of duty upto a limit of Rs. 75 lakhs in terms of the said notification. A question has ...

Gama Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT412TriDel

1. The applicants herein who have asked for a decision on the merits of the matter, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in applying the date of filing the RT 12 returns as the relevant date for the purpose of computing the limitation of period of six months for recovery of erroneous credit in terms of Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, since the relevant date during the period in dispute is the date of taking credit. They therefore, seek rectification of this mistake.2. Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR confirms this position and also draws our attention to the prayer in the Revenue's appeal which was disposed of by the above final order wherein the department had contended that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation is the date of taking credit and not the date of receipt of inputs, which was the date applied by the lower Appellate authority.3. We have considered the submissions and perused the Rule as it stood at the material point of time and we agree that th...