Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments

Hira Cement Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC275

1. Arguing for the appellants Shri G. Shiv Das, learned Advocate submitted that two issues are to be considered in these two appeals. He said that it was charged by the department that appellant M/s. Hira Cement and M/s. Hira Industries Ltd. are related persons. He said that this was the only issue agitated before the authorities below. However, before the Tribunal he concedes that they are related persons. As regards other issue, he said, i.e. statutory deductions in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and 4(2) which was neither claimed by the assessee before the adjudicating authority nor was considered. This being a statutory deductions even at the appellate stage it can be claimed. In support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Snow White Industrial Corporation v. CCE reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 360 (S.C.). Particularly he drew our attention to para 13 and 14 of the said order wherein it was held that permissible deductions allowed even if no...

Ms. Reena H. Mirchandani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is assessee's appeal against the order of CIT(A) V, New Delhi dt. 19th December, 1991 relating to asst. yr. 1988-89 and following grounds have been raised by the assessee : "1. That the learned Asstt. CIT has earned in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in treating Rs. 7,59,000 as income from undisclosed sources and the learned CIT(A) in confirming the same on wholly illegal, erroneous and untenable grounds. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition of Rs. 7,59,000 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) be deleted." 2. Facts are like this that on 2nd November, 1987 the DRI seized Indian currency worth Rs. 7,59,000 and foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 3,500 from assessee's possession when she was about to board the British Airways Flight No. BA-019 from New Delhi to Hong Kong. In her statement recorded by the DRI authorities and later on by the IT authorities she stated that the Indian currency was handed over to her by a person named Mr....

Rahul Jee and Co.Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Amit Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)212; 81(1999)DLT50; (1999)123PLR7

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1.This application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,10,699.60. It is averred in the plaint that by an agreement entered into at Delhi the defendants were to pay a sum of Rs. 21,18,740/- immediately on raising of the bill in respect of the sale of 16298 Kg. of Raw Wool by the plaintiff to Defendant No.1. The plaintiff further averred that Rs. 2 lakhs were given by Defendant No.1 to plaintiff by DD No. 755655 on 8.3.1994 but thereafter Defendant No.1 showed his inability to pay any further amounts. It was thereafter agreed between the parties that Defendant No.1 would return the Raw Wool back to the plaintiff and as a consequence of the failure of this contract of sale to reach fruition, loss/damage would be liquidated at Rs. 40 per Kg., thus totalling Rs. 6,51,920/-. After accounting for Rs. 2 lakhs paid through Demand Draft as mentioned above, the plaintiff demanded a...

Farida and Another Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)230; 81(1999)DLT119; (1999)123PLR20

ORDERCrl. W.No. 720/99. 1.Issue notice to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted, returnable on 26th October, 1999. 2. Mr. B.T. Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it is an established fact that on February 5, 1999. Ms. Mehnaz, a girl student of Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Brahmpuri, Delhi, was shot in the school, during school hours, as a result of which she later died in the hospital. 4. We have perused the FIR (pages 19-21 of the court record) according to which the incident took place inside the school. We have also perused the letter dated May 4,1999 of the Deputy Director of Education, District (North-East), Directorate of Education, Delhi (page 41 of the writ petition) to the S.H.O., Seelampur, Delhi, which also states that the shooting incident took place in the school premises. This letter insofar as it is relevant reads as follows :- 'This has reference to the murder of Meh...

Union Bank of India and ors. Vs. Jagannath Radhey Shyam and Company an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)319; 81(1999)DLT221

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.1977 passed by the court of Shri N.L. Kakkar, Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondents for Rs. 47665.00 with costs and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realisation, against the appellant-Bank. 2. Respondents filed a suit alleging therein that they were maintaining current account with the Union Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi; in which they used to deposit substantial amounts; on 27th October, 1974 one cheque book containing 100 cheque forms was obtained by them from the bank; on scrutiny of the statement of account from 1.10.74 to 7.11.74 furnished by the bank it was found that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was debited to their account on 5.11.74 and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was debited to their account on 6.11.74; enquiries from the bank revealed that these debit entries were made against the two che...

Northern Zone Physically Handicapped Railway Employees Coop. Group Hou ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)594; 81(1999)DLT305

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1.This is a petition filed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act seeking extension of time for making and publishing the award by the arbitrator. 2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 bearing Suit No. 3045-A/92 for reference of the disputes in respect of the construction of flats for the petitioner society. The Court had appointed Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired Judge of this Court as arbitrator vide order dated 6.5.93. The arbitrator had entered upon reference on 10.7.93. Thereafter time for making and publishing the award was extended up to 10.3.94, 10.7.94 and finally till the 9th of November, 1994. On 7.1.95, the respondent declined to extend further time for making and publishing the award. 3. Counsel for the parties have taken me through the record of the arbitral proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent himself has been responsible for the initial delay in completion of ...

Uco Bank Vs. Mr. R.D. Gupta (Deceased)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)79; 82(1999)DLT59; 1999(51)DRJ609; (2000)ILLJ996Del

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Mr. R.D. Gupta (deceased) respondent was working as the Chief Cashier at Maya Puri Branch of the appellant Bank. He was charge sheeted for having dishonestly and fraudulently making wrongful gain of Rs. 6,630/- by falsely and incorrectly crediting the voucher of this amount in the name of Mr. Vakil Mahato in his name and in his account. He mis-appropriated the said amount which was actually meant for one Shri Vakil Mahato to class 'D' employee of this bank. Enquiry was conducted. Report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as not spent on duty. The Reviewing Authority, however, after perusing the record found that this act of the respondent was prejudicial to the interest of the bank, thereforee, passed the order thereby enhancing the penalty of removal from service. It was against this order of enhanced penalty that the res...

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs. State (Nct Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 81(1999)DLT71

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.4.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 209/1997 directing issuance of summons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 2. An investigation pursuant to the FIR No. 248/1996 registered under Sections 302/34, IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, culminated into submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 302/34, IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. At the stage of framing of the charge, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor to summon the petitioner as an accused in the case. On consideration of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and the documents filed in support thereof, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 302/34, IPC has been made out against the petitioner. He, thereforee, all...

Harbajan Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ821

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 12/97 registered under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code at the Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi. On perusal of FIR in question, it appears that the petitioner's premises were inspected by the enforcement staff of DESU on 3.1.1997, when it was discovered that the electricity was being abstracted fraudulently by tampering the meter. In Ramesh Chandra Vs . State of Delhi : 68(1997)DLT257 it was held that the mere existence of the tampered meter is not enough to attract the provisions of Section 39 of the Act and there is no presumption of dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electric energy on discovery of tampered meters. The presumption under Section 39 will arise if artificial means were employed to abstract, consumer or use energy. In my opinion, the case is fully covered by the decision in the case of Ramesh C...

B. Venugopal Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against Adjudication Order No. AD/MAS/58/93 (MJ), dated 31-5-1993 under which a penalty of Rs. 45,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The seized amount of Rs. 5,000 has been ordered to be adjusted towards the recovery of the amount of penalty leaving a balance of Rs. 40,000 yet to be paid. 2. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that it would cause undue hardship to the appellant if he is required to pre-deposit the balance amount of penalty. I, therefore, waived the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 40,000 and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The facts briefly are that on 4-12-1991 the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, searched the residential premises of the appellant and recovered and seized a sum of Rs. 5,000. The appellant was examined under section 40 of the Act on the same day in respect of the seized Indian curren...