Delhi Court October 2000 Judgments

Aruna Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Gayatri Co-op Group Housing Society Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(58)DRJ434

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. M/s. Gayatri Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. entered into a contract with the petitioner for the construction of 105 DU's at plot No. 9. Sector 9, Dwarka. Phase - I, New Delhi on 18.12.1996. The agreement consists an arbitration Clause No. 5.8.6 according to which all questions, disputes or differences between the parties were referable to an arbitrator to be appointed in terms of the said clause. The petitioner could not complete the work within the stipulated time because of the delay on the part of the respondent in approving the plans, drawings, specifications and pattern etc. in time. On 10.10.1998 a Memorandum of Linder standing was signed between the parties. This was in furtherance of the contract dated 18.12.1996 which provided for the completion of work by 31.10.1999, on the basis of the revised bar chart supplied by the respondent. The respondent also agreed to release the R.A. Bill payments within seven days from the issue of certificate by the arc...

Raj Kumar Kapoor @ Kaka Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ1152; 2001(73)ECC452

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this Criminal Appeal, Raj Kumar Kapoor @ Kaka has challenged the order dated 28.10.1999 of the Special Judge, Delhi convicting him under Sections 21/25/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and the order dated 30.10.1999 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 21 of the Act together with fine of rupees one lac and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for two years. The prosecution case as unfolded by the charge-sheet is that on the basis of secret information reduced into writing, Inspector Mahesh Chand Sharma arranged for a raiding party and apprehended a scooter No. DL-8S-.1520 on 7.7,1996 at about 10.15 P.M. at the Southern Western Side, Guru Sai Dutt Parmanand Colony and after serving the notice under Section 50 of the Act, recovered 100 grams of heroin from his possession, which was taken into possession and a sample of 5 grams was drawn from it and separately sealed. A sample was got Chemically analy...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.R. Sondhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)225; 89(2001)DLT85; 2000(57)DRJ518; [2001]248ITR695(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. On being moved by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), the following ques-tions have been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'the Tribunal') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 95,000 received by the assessed during this year is to be assessed only under Section 28(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that thereby the assessed is entitled to the deduction under Section 80S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that where Section 28(ii) applies, Section 15/17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, will not apply even though the assessed is to be described as an employee ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D.R. Sondhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)164CTR(Del)560

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J.On being moved by the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 95,000 received by the assessed during this year is to be assessed only under section 28(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that thereby the assessed is entitled to the deduction under section 80S of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that where section 28(ii) applies, sections 15/17(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, will not apply even though the assessed is to be described as an employee ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct i...

N.R. Saxena Vs. Anil Dhir

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 7.7.2000, passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 1591/99 - entitled Shri N.R. Saxena v. Shri Anil Dhir. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring that the appellant had purchased a locally assembled computer 386 from the respondent on 29.8.1998 for Rs. 20,000/-. The grievance of the appellant before the District Forum in the complaint, filed by him, in nutshell was that the computer started giving problem and stopped working on 18.11.1998. It was alleged in the complaint that when the respondent did not repair the computer, the appellant got the same repaired from another mechanic and had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. The appellant...

Cce Vs. Hilton Roulunds Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(96)LC391Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue questioning the correctness of Order-in-Appeal No. 626-CE/DLH/99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Appellate Commissioner reversed the decision of the adjudicating authority disallowing modvat credit amounting to Rs. 7017 availed on P.V.C.Cables under Rule 57Q. Appellate Commissioner based his decision on the principle stated by this Tribunal in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh 2. A larger bench of this Tribunal in Jawahar Mills Ltd. took the view that Wires and Cables would be covered by the expression 'plant' being an item necessary for the assessee to carry on his business and being an item not in the nature of a consumable, but an item having fairly high degree of durability, satisfies the definition of plant and, therefore, modvat is admissible.This Larger Bench binds me. In view of this decision I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). I...

Collector of Customs Vs. Sri Kaliswari Fireworks P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT177TriDel

2. The short question before us is whether the respondents' imported machine viz. "Automatic Graphic Plate Processor" was to be classified under CTH 90.10 or not. The Assistant Collector of Customs classified the goods under CTH 90.10. But the Collector (Appeals) held that it was classifiable as printing equipment under CTH 84.34. The present appeal of the Revenue is against the decision of the Collector (Appeals).3. It is submitted by ld. SDR that an identical issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of Light Publications Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Mumbai [2000 (121) E.L.T. 495]. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has, fairly, conceded.4. The main ground of the Revenue's appeal is that the machine in question worked on the photographic principle and was, therefore, appropriately classifiable under CTH 90.10. There is no rebuttal of this contention before us.5. In Light Publications (Supra), the Larger Bench held that, if the photograp...

Winsome Yarns Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC256

1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by M/s Winsome Yarns Ltd. is whether duties of Customs are chargeable on clearances of cotton waste by 100% export oriented undertaking to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).2. Shri Balbir Singh, ld. Advocate, submitted that Appellants are registered 100% E.O.U. and are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Yarn; that the cotton waste falling under heading 52.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act is generated during the manufacture of cotton yarn; that they cleared cotton waste to the Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No.8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996; that a show cause notice dated 4-2-1997 was issued to them for demanding duty for the period from 10-8-1996 to 31-12-1996; the Additional Commissioner under the Adjudication Order No. 89/97 dropped the demand. He further, mentioned that however, on review appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeal) under the impugned Order set a...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chadha Papers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT813TriDel

1. This application is at the instance of respondent in appeal E/1889/98-NB. That appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut questioning the correctness of Order-in-Appeal No.203-CE/MRT/98, dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad. By the said appellate order manufacturer was allowed to take Modvat credit on the basis of duplicate invoices obtained from dealers. On the ground that those duplicate invoices were not printed on pink paper, Revenue took up the contention that appellate Commissioner was wrong in allowing the manufacturer to avail of Modvat credit. According to the Revenue as per Notification No.23/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-5-1995 registered dealers were issuing duplicate copy of invoices in paper having pink colour to enable the manufacturers to claim Modvat credit. As per that notification colour scheme was to come into effect from 1-8-1995. Thereafter, it was Department's case, that no manufacturer can be allowe...

Uptron Colour Picture Tube Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC579

1. The appellants entered into an agreement on July 22,1985 with M/s.Toshiba Corporation and M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation for the setting up of a factory for the manufacture of 'Colour Picture Tubes'. According to the agreement, M/s. Toshiba Corporation was to provide the know-how for the manufacture and M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation was to supply proprietary equipment of M/s. Toshiba Corporation. The agreement for supply of know-how covered all technical knowledge, information and technical data relating to the manufacture of colour picture tubes of the specified types including specification of relevant equipment for production of colour picture tubes and procedure for production, testing and quality assurance of the product. The appellants were to pay Yen 65 as know-how and technical documentation fee to M/s. Toshiba Corporation for the supply of know-how. In addition royalty was also payable in respect of picture tubes manufactured in India. Dispute arose with the Customs authorities...