Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Ashwani and Associates Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT57TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 3-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he confirmed the order-in-original of the Superintendent of Central Excise (Service Tax) imposing penalty of Rs. 14,969/- under Section 76 and Rs. 5,100/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act on the appellants. The appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to them to prove that they had a sufficient cause in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act for not filing the return and making the due payment of the tax in time. They were also not aware of the intricacies of the law which was introduced for the first time in July, 1994 and the penalty has been wrongly imposed on them for non-payment of Service Tax for the period July, 1994 to September, 1994.2. We have heard both the sides. The learned consultant for the appellants has contended that the order-in-original of the Supe...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prasad Film Laboratories

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT387TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the unrecorded audio magnetic tapes. The respondents, M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories, have claimed the classification under sub-heading No. 8523.11 of the excise tariff which covers magnetic tapes - audio tapes in the form of jumbo rolls, pancakes, mini pancakes, hubs and reels. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise has classified the same under Sub-heading No. 8523.19 which covers 'others' not covered by sub-heading 8523.11,12,13 or 14. The reason given by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise for classifying the same under sub-heading No. 8523.19 was that these were not ordinary audio tapes meant for repeated reproduction of sound, but they were used exclusively by cinema industry in cine dubbing and recording theatres for transfer of sound. The Collector of Central Excise took a view that all types of audio tapes in hubs or reels were covered by sub-heading 8523.11 and thus there was no justificati...

Madan Mohan Arora Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, while working as Sub-Post Master in 1974, was alleged to have accepted a tribe of Rs. 100/-. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.7.74 on the ground that the criminal case was pending against him. The applicant was eventually convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 161 IPC read with Section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, by a judgment dated 31.3.1976 by the Trial Court. The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment in the High Court of Delhi. The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside by the judgment dated 12.2.87 on the ground that sanction for the prosecution has not been accorded by the competent officer and that sanction also suffers from the Vice of non-application of mind. Thereafter, after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution the applicant was prosecuted on the same charges before Criminal Court at Delhi. By judgment dated 24.10.1994 the applicant was acquitted of...

Rosie Ahuja Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 31.1.1996 and subsequent promotion order passed by the respondents promoting Respondent 5, Shri O.K. Vijh as Research Officer (Engg.) w.e.f. 4.3.1996.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited directly by the U.P.S.C. as Research Assistant (Engg.) (RA Engg.) and joined the post on 14.6.1985. Respondents 5 and 6, namely, S/Shri O.K. Vijh and G.D. Sharma who were working earlier in the feeder grade of Supervisor had been promoted as RA (Engg.) on regular basis w.e.f 30.1.1985. The respondents have stated that at that time the applicant was considered senior to Respondents 5 and 6. This is also shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents by OM dated 23,2.88 for RA (Engg.) as on 1.2.1988, although in the OM itself it is mentioned that the seniority list of RA (Engg.) is as on 1.1.1998.Admittedly, the respondents held DPC on 25,1.88 to consider the pr...

S.K. Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)306; 84(2000)DLT324; 2000(52)DRJ831

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. With the counsel of the parties, the petition is taken up for disposal. Respondents have filed affidavit of their Chief Engineer dated 18.11.1999, explaining in detail the reasons for the delay in appointment of the arbitrator in compliance with the order of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that in view of the neglect and failure of the respondents to appoint an arbitrator within the time directed by the Court, the court should appoint an independent arbitrator having regard to the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 2. While it is true that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the affected party may approach the court for taking necessary steps for appointment of an independent arbitrator on the failure of the designated authority to appoint one. Yet the Court has the discretion not to so appoint, in case the arbitrator is appointed by the designated Authori...

Ajit JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(2)ARBLR264(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT1; 2000(52)DRJ645

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B. 2. Since a short point of law is involved and there is not much controversy on facts, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself. 3. The petitioner, an individual and claiming himself to be the Managing Director of an incorporated company, impugnes in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality and the validity of the authorisation dated 11th January, 1996, issued by Director of Income-tax (Inv), Chennai - respondent No. 4 herein, under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'); the subsequent conduct of search by the Assistant Director of Income-Tax (Inv) - respondent No.5 herein, on the same date and finally the block assessment order, dated 31st January, 1997, passed under Section 158BC/144 of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Range 31, New Delhi - respondent No. 2 herein. 4. According to the petitioner, he and the company, o...

Master Daljit Singh and ors. Vs. S. Dara Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)341; AIR2000Delhi292; 85(2000)DLT794; II(2000)DMC134; 2000(54)DRJ509

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This application (I.A. 2538/97) has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (for short 'the Act') for grant of interim maintenance and for return of Istridhan etc. 2.Amardeep Singh was married to plaintiff No. 4 on 25.9.1982. He died on 20.10.1995. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, his two minor sons, plaintiff No. 3, a minor daughter and plaintiff No. 4 his widow have filed the suit for partition of movable and immovable properties alleged to be joint family properties, grant of maintenance and recovery of Istridhan of plaintiff No. 4. The defendants No. 1 to 4 are father, mother, brother and brother's wife respectively of Amardeep Singh. 3.It is alleged that Amardeep Singh was working along with his father in the joint family business of manufacturing and repair of various agricultural implements being run under the name of Guru Gobind Singh Iron Works. That business was formerly being run by defendant No.1 as Karta in partnership ...

Hoshiar Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)321; 83(2000)DLT669; 2000(56)DRJ75

ORDERCrl. R. 254/831. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.1983 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1982 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner while reducing the sentence to two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. When the matter was called up, none appeared for the petitioner. Since the matter is an old one and has been pending in this Court since 1983, no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the same. I, thereforee, appoint Mr. Naveen Thakur as amices Curiae to assist the court. 3. The facts leading to this case are that the complainant, Khem Chand, who was employed in the DSIDC was posted as a clerk on the check post at Deoli on the night of 19.10.1979. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner entered the room where Khem Chand was on duty and demanded money from him by threatening him with a knife. The petitioner is accused of snatc...

VipIn Kumar Vs. Union of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)573; 2000CriLJ1555; 84(2000)DLT33; 2000(52)DRJ672; 2000(71)ECC812

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.11.1995 passed by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. 2.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that somewhere in 1987 the Narcotics Control Bureau received secret information about smuggling and drug trafficking activities of the petitioner and his associates namely Jasbir Singh Sandhu, Sukhdev Singh Sandhu, Dev Singh Chahal, Narender Vishnoi, Aziz Ahmed and Smt. Shoma Abionkar Around 17.11.1987, an information was received by the Narcotics Control Bureau that two separate consignments of heroin had been dispatched from Bombay to USA and the petitioner had been deputed for their disposal in the USA. As per prosecution case, the accused Jasbir Singh gave certain directions to the petitioner on telephone regarding disposal of the contraband and the said telephonic conversation was intercepted and recorded on a tape by the Nar...

Ram NaraIn Agarwal and Another Vs. D.D.A. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)559; AIR2000Delhi206; 84(2000)DLT530; (2000)125PLR19

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. A permanent injunction has been prayed for restraining theDefendants fromcreatingany obstruction or interference in carrying outtheadditions/alterationsand repair work in the property in suit. Interimorders tothis effect were granted on 2.7.1998. Subsequently, thepleadingshad beencompletedand the Defendant No.1/DDA has also filedanapplication under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 for vacation of these interim orders. Byconsent of Learned Counsel for the parties the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1and2 as well as the aforementioned application has been takenupfor hearing and disposal jointly. 2. Ithasbeen contended by Shri V.K. Sharma, Learned Counselforthe Defendantsthat the disputes stand concluded by a decision ofaDivision Benchofthis Court rendered in the case entitled 'SudershanKapoorand AnotherVs. U.O.I. C.W.P. No. 3351/1991 in which the suitproperty,i.e. KhasraNos.891and 892 situated in village NawadsMajraHastsal,New Delhi,was specifically in consideration, bu...