Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Ureka Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT618TriDel

"(1) It has been proved beyond doubt that M/s. UPL had been receiving unaccounted raw material i.e. plastic granules and have clandestinely manufactured and cleared the finished excisable product out of the said under counted raw material during the relevant period and have thus evaded the Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 23,73,934/- (as per duty recalculation chart in para 29 supra). This duty is determined under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A by applying the extended period vide proviso to this Section on the Grounds that the aforesaid noticee Had concealed the facts of production and removal of excisable goods and had wilfully misstated the facts related thereto. (ii) M/s. UPL have removed excisable goods by not recording the production in their excise records and cleared the same without payment of Central Excise Duty, thus have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173G(4), 173F and 226 of the Central Excise Rules and rendered themselves liable for penal actio...

Pal Properties (i) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the combined order passed by the CIT (Appeals) on 21-5-1993 relevant to assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.2. Since both the appeals are based on common facts and identical grounds of appeal, we, therefore, proceed to dispose of them by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. The appeal for assessment year 1990-91 and the first ground for assessment year 1991-92 rotate around a single issue. Briefly stated the facts of the case on the issue are : The assessee entered into lease agreement on 26th November, 1979 with M/s. Arya Dharam Seva Sangh, for the lease of the 1st Floor, premises, Flat No. H-72, Connaught Circus, New Delhi together with right of entrance passage and other easements of the said premises for 114 months at a rent of Rs. 1,000 per month. This lease deed was renewable at the desire of the tenant. The assessee entered into sub-lease vide lease deed dated 18-8-1981 with the Traders Bank. The Trader...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. to 12.[ These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues] 12. In ground No. 2(b), the challenge is posed by the assessee to maintaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,425 by the CIT(A) on account of legal and professional charges paid to M/s. J.B. Dadachandji holding that it is not connected with the business of the company.13. We have heard the rival submissions. It is seen that the assessee paid an amount of Rs. 1,65,525 to M/s. Dadachandji & Co. solicitors in connection with registration of shares by non-resident companies of Mr.Swaraj Paul. The assessee was requested to indicate how this expenditure could be related to carrying on the business. In its letter dated 30-6-1986, the assessee stated that the company had to secure opinion on the circulars issued by the RBI in connection with the investment to be made by the non-residents, registration of shares in their names and in connection with the writ filed by the company in the Bombay High Court challenging t...

Smt. Kanta Bhatia and Another Vs. Sh. Mahinder Gupta and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)1005; 89(2001)DLT744

ORDERKHAN, (J).1. Parties are playing a game of numbers. But both sides are laying claim on one plot of land but on different numbers. 2. Petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased a 100 Sq.Yd. of land at Shadi Khampur, Delhi Along with her husband from one Mr. Mangal Sen and his wife way back on 1.2.1985 which was covered in Khasra No. 768/33 and re-numbered as 2162/T-13. Her husband died on 2.2.86 and she started in property No. R-43, West Patel Nagar She complains that meanwhile Respondents No.1 & 2 claimed that they had purchased this plot of land in 1995. Apprehending forcible dispossession she filed Suit No. 422A/96 and obtained an interim injunction on 4.7.96 whereby corpus of the suit property was placed in the custody of the court. Her injunction application was later dismissed on 6.11.97 but restored again. She alleges that meanwhile respondent broke open the lock and constructed a room over the disputed land and handed over possession to two tenants. She moved a contempt petit...

Sh. Ashok Kumar Bandhwar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)249; 89(2001)DLT651

ORDERKHAN, (J).1. Petitioner, an owner of adjacent property filed CWP NO. 1283/99 requiring respondents 1 and 2 to restrain respondents No.3 & 4 from carrying out alleged unauthorised construction at property No. 43-A/1 Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Writ Court disposed off this petition by order dated 30.4.99 providing as under: 'Respondents shall carry out the construction on the property No. 43-A/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi in accordance with the valid sanctioned plans and should the respondent undertake construction otherwise than in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye Laws the respondent MCD shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.'2. Petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging that respondents No. 3 and 4 were still going ahead with alleged illegal construction in collusion and connivance with Respondents No.1 and 2 which impinged on their easementory rights. Legal notice was also served on respondents No. 1 and 2 informing them about this but the...

Smt. Manbhar Devi Vs. Shri Surinder Kumar and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)1003; 89(2001)DLT740

ORDERKHAN, (J)1. Parties are fighting it out for four feet common passage. Petitioner is landlady and respondents her tenants. She has let out a shop to them and executed a rent deed dated 19.7.90. Her case is that there was a common stair and passage which was used by all the occupants of the tenanted shops including her for reaching to her residential accommodation on the second floor in the building. Respondents had started creating obstruction and nuisance in the passage in November, 1996 for which he filed a suit for perpetual injunction against them for restraining them from locking staircase, passage for using another part of the property except the tenanted shop and further putting any kind of goods/articles in stairs or in the passage of the property. She also sought ad-interim relief which was granted to her by order dated 14.1.1997 and whereby respondents were restrained from placing any kind of goods/articles in the staircase or passage.2. Respondents Look appeal against th...

Sandeep Gupta Vs. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 89(2001)DLT739

ORDERKhan, J.1. Plot No. K-259, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi is at the centre of controversy. The plot was allotted to one Sh.Shiv Raj Diwan by Kohat Cooperative Society but was allegedly sold to petitioner for consideration who claims to have raised construction on it. Meanwhile membership of original allotted was terminated and his allotment cancelled. 2. Petitioner filed Suit No. 146/88 for permanent injunction for re- straining defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the plot and the building. While his suit was pending DDA announced a scheme for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold in 1993. According to petitioner he also sought benefit under the scheme and his case was pending consideration. Pursuant thereto he sought amendment in his suit in 1997 to incorporate the plan that he had applied for conversion of leasehold into freehold which was pending consideration of DDA. 3. Trial court dismissed his application on the ground that once original allotee...

Bipindra NaraIn Karn Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1142; 89(2001)DLT763

ORDERKhan, J.1. Petitioner availed of the credit card facility of respondent bank and allegedly incurred liability of Rs.1,36,309.82. A demand was raised against him which he failed to satisfy. The Bank, thereforee, filed a money suit under Order 37 CPC. He sought leave to defend which was rejected and the decree for Rs. 2,22,644/92 along with 12% per annum pendente lite and future interest passed against him. He now challenges the decree on the ground that leave was wrongly refused to him. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that Trial court refused him leave by plac- ing whole hog reliance on a computerised statement of account submitted by the bank and dies believedpetitioner's version that only Rs. 29,906/- was due from him and consequently passed a decree against him. The trial court, according to him, had fallen in error by straight away taking the compute- rised bank statement by treating it as conclusive proof without appreciat- ing that it was neither certified to be true copy of the...

Prem Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(72)ECC266

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal No.168/98 is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.3.1998 of the Special Judge in SC No. 13/95 from FIR No. 95/95, Police Station Janak Puri, New Delhi under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 whereby the learned Special Judge held the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for being in possession of 120 grams of smack on 23.2.1995 at about 4.25 a.m. and, thereforee, by order dated 27.3.1998 sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution. are that on 23.2.1995, Inspector K.L. Meena with SI K.P. Singh, HC Attar Singh, HC Shiv Kumar, Cons. Satyawan, Cons., Shailesh and Const. Krishan Pal were present in Nangal Rai Village in relation to an investigation in case FIR No.17/95 under Section 364-A...

Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2000)DMC558

ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.2. This Criminal Revision Petition No. 505 of 1997 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions dated 24.9.1997 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 306/498-A read with Section 34 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that upon material available on record and taken to be correct in all respects, it is not sufficient to support the charge of Sections 306 & 498-A IPC. It is on this backdrop that the petitioner has taken me through the record of the case. The only material available on record are two letters written by the deceased giving reasons as to why she has chosen to take this drastic step of ending her life. It would, there- fore, be appropriate to refers to the letters which are as follows: 'Unable to bear the load of intolerable hardship and humiliation. I am leaving this world. I had married with great hopes that in a joint family I would receive and give a lot ...