Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments

Wilson and Company Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT224TriDel

1. The matter referred to the Larger Bench for consideration relates to the status of an order passed by a Central Excise Officer without his jurisdiction. With effect from 27-12-1985, the show cause notice in regard to duty of excise short levied or short paid, etc., by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts was to be decided by the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal while hearing Appeal No. E/150/89 - MAS of Wilson & Company Ltd., and Appeal No. E/236/90 - MAS of the Revenue with regard to the similar issue and with reference to the same assessee but for a subsequent period, noted that the Superintendent of Central Excise had passed an order on 29-12-1987 although he was not competent to initiate any proceedings and pass orders in proceedings where the demand of duty was for a period of more than six months. From the facts as recorded in para 3 of the Tribunal's decision aforesaid, it is seen that after ignoring the order, dated 29-...

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ282CAT

1. The applicant has impugned the order passed by the respondents dated 21.11.96 (Annexure A-1) in the reply to his representation regarding his seniority in the post of Booking Clerk.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Peon in July, 1977 with the respondents and was later selected to the post of Coaching Clerk in 1983. After having passed the necessary examination, he was placed in the panel of successful candidates for the posts of Booking Clerk and was deputed to undergo two months training at the Zonal Training School (ZTS), Chanduasi from 4.2.84 to 3.4.84. In that training, admittedly, he did not pass in one paper, namely, Coaching Theory and, therefore, had to do it in the supplementary examination. According to the rules, the applicant was required to pass the supplementary examination for the training course within one year. The issue raised in this case is whether the applicant had done so or not or whether the delay in pa...

Randhir Singh and ors. Vs. State - Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 77(1999)DLT325

ORDERCrl.M.(M) No. 1959-A & Crl.M. No. 4916/991. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR pending before M.M. 2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the marriage has taken place on 10.11.1989 and after 17.9.1992, the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 started living separately. It is not disputed that parties have obtained a decree of divorce and both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have remarried. 3. In the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is mentioned that custody of the child Naveen Kumar has been handed over to petitioner No. 2 and he is looking after the child. It is also incorporated that parties have amicably settled their claims regarding dowry, stridhan, permanent alimony and maintenance part, present and future and now nothing remains due to them against each other. 4. In this view of the finding, no useful purpose would be served in c...

Prem Aggarwal Vs. Devika Gupta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)781

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a suit for the specific performance of an agreement dated 27th October, 1989 in respect of Property No. 127, Babu Park, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.15,05,000/-. It has been stated that a sum of Rs.101/- had been paid in cash along with a cheque for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to late Sh. V.P. Gupta significantly the suit was not filled during the life time of Late Shri V.P. Gupta the alleged signatory of the Agreement to Sale. In the Written Statement the contesting defendants have stated, inter alias that Defendants No.2, the son of Late Shri V.P. Gupta had jointly purchased, with the latter, the property in suit. This is undoubtedly purely a legal issue which would be determined in the context of and on a perusal of the registered sale Deed. However, the widow of Late Shri V.P. Gupta, Defendant No.1 as well as his son , Defendant No.2 have categorically stated that the agreement relied upon was not executed by Late Shri V.P. Gupta ...

Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rohit Sripat Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ481

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The reliefs prayed for in the present suit for partition and rendition of accounts is in respect of Apartment No. L-6, (First Floor), Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and Apartment No. 707, Vardhman Apartments, Mayur Vihar Extension, New Delhi. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from transferring, alienating, disposing off or encumbering them the suit property in any manner whatsoever has been prayed for. Because of the view taken by me. do not propose to go into the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the suit has been instituted because of a marital discord between the parties. An interim injunction was granted on 25.2.1997 when the suit came up for hearing on the first occasion. As recorded in the order dated 8.8.1997 there is no dispute between the parties that the property is in their joint names. The Defendant has filed an application for vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ...

Pacific Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2000]245ITR433(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner calls in question the legality of the decision taken by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi, as communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Tech.-I), New Delhi, vide communication dated July 19, 1999 (annexure A).3. The main grievance of the petitioner, who has been denied the benefits available under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), is that before the decision was taken by the Chief Commissioner, New Delhi, he was not given an opportunity of being heard. The communication of the Deputy .Commissioner of Income-tax (annexure A) shows that the Chief Commissioner had taken the view that the assessee-petitioner's case does not qualify for approval under Section 80-O of the Act.4. On verification of the records learned counsel for the Revenue conceded that the Chief Commissioner had not really practically heard the assessed before passing the order. That being the position, it is a clear case...

Meenakshi Devi, Proprietor, Neel Kanth Ispat Vs. Mstc Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ827

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was Filed for appointment of an arbitrator on the allegations that the respondent had invited tenders for sale of certain scrap; the tender of the petitioner having been accepted, an order was placed upon the petitioner to deposit certain amount in installments and to remove the material from site. The aforesaid order was to be carried out on the terms and conditions contained in the supply order dated 3rd September, 1996. Certain disputes having arisen between the parties under the aforesaid supply order, the petitioner gave a notice to the respondent on 16th August, 1999 for reference of those disputes to an arbitrator to be appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. It is alleged that in spite of receipt of notice, the arbitrator was not appointed and the petitioner, thereforee, filed this petition for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Concilia...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Indira K.P. Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]264ITR615(Delhi)

Ariit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue a reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (in short the 'Tribunal'), has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that section 52(2) was not applicable to the facts of the case of the present assessed in computing the capital gains from the sale of shares 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 19,982 was not taxable as the business income of the assessed from dealings in land 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19,982 was not chargeable to tax even as capital gains ?'So far as the first question is concerned, in view of the positive findi...

Cit Vs. Mrs. Indira K.P. Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN53(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of revenue a reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', has referred the following questions for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that section 52(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the facts of the case of the present assessed in computing the capital gains from the sale of shares ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 19,982 was not taxable as the business income of the assessed from dealings in land ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 19,982 was not chargeable to tax even as capital gains ?'So far as the first question is concerned, in view of the positive finding of fact...

B.B. Sharma and Others. Vs. J.K. Arora and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned petitions, filed by the petitioners under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to the Act) have common facts and raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned petitions, lie in a narrow compass. Petitioner No. 2 is a Company, duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 1207, Hemkunt, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of petitioner No. 2. The respondents had made deposits with the petitioners. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the petitioners, were to carry interest at the agreed rate and after the date of maturity the same were payable by the petitioners to the respondents together with interest. Since the petitioners failed ...