Delhi Court January 2001 Judgments

M/S. Bikaner Wooltex Vs. Cce, Amritsar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate submits that the appellants was a registered dealer and the original authority had demanded duty from him but the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside that part of the order. He has however confirmed the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The ld. Advocate also submits that there was no justification in the facts and circumstances of the case of imposition of penalty.2. Shri Swatanter Kumar, JDR submits that the legal provisions were clear and the contravention have been discussed by the original authority in the order-in-original. He further submits that the amount of duty involved was above Rs. 25,00,000/-.3. After hearing both the sides, I find that primafacie, the appellants have an arguable case. I consider that it would be in the interest of justice, if the appellants are directed to pre deposit Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from today. On depositing the above sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) within a period of 4 weeks ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Bikram Singh Sood

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)627; 90(2001)DLT146; 2001RLR325

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C. J. (Oral) At the instance of the Revenue; following question, pursuant to the directions given by this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short `Act'), has been referred for opinion of this Court: 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.1,18,928/- received by the assessed as his share of the percentage of the 1st prize money was not taxable?'Dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73. 2. Factual position, in a nutshell, is as follows: assessed was an agent of the Haryana Government for selling lottery tickets in respect of lottery known as 'Haryana State Lottery'. As an authorised agent, assessed was to get certain percentage of the prize money. Conditions laid down in this regard are as follows: '7% and 2% of all prizes above and including Rupees 500/- will be deducted and paid to the authorised agents and sellers respectively. The sellers prize will be paid on produ...

Mr. Janak R. Mehta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)395

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of probate of the last Will dated 24th September, 1989 executed by Late Shri Ganda Ram Mahandru wherein the petitioner was appointed as Executor of the Will.2. It is averred that the Will in question was executed by the deceased Shri Ganda Ram Mahandru which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Deli on 9.1.1990 and that at the time of execution of the Will, Testator was enjoying good health and was in sound, disposing mind and executed out of his own free-will, without any undue influence, coercion or pressure from any body. The Will was witnessed by two independent witnesses.3.It is further averred that the ordinary place of residence of the deceased was at New Delhi where he was originally residing and at the time of death, he was residing at the premises No. E-262, East of Kailash, New Delhi. Deceased was the owner of a plot of land which was valued at aroun...

The Motor and General Finance Vs. Shanker Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)703; 91(2001)DLT552; 2001(3)RAJ296

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral)1. This is a suit under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for direction to the arbitrator, respondent No. 5 to file the award dated 1st August, 1996 and the proceedings in the court and make the same as a rule of the court.2. Though the respondents have filed the objections to the award but none has put an appearance on their behalf. Put briefly the cats are as under:-The petitioner is a Public Limited Company duly registered under the Companies Act 1913 and Shri Rajiv Gupta is the Director-in-charge and Constituted Attorney of the petitioner company.3. In the proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act initiated by the petitioner, which was registered as a suit No. 4546/92 titled the Motor & General finance Limited v. Shanker Singh & Ors, respondent No. 5 Shri Inderjit, Gulati, Advocate was appointed as an arbitrator vide judgment respondent No. 5 issued notices to the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 calling upon them to file their resp...

Nihal Chand Vs. the State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)680; 94(2001)DLT70; 2001(2)JCC88

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against a judgment dated 11.7.1995 passed by the Special Court under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') where by the appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Act and was sentenced to undergo RI fora period of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default further RI for a period of one year. The appeal was beyond the period of limitation, but upon an application moved on behalf of the appellant, the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned vide order dated 8.5.1996. Since the appeal was through Jail, Ms. Babita Punia, Advocate was appointed amices Curiae for assisting the Court.2. I have heard leaned amices Curiae and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the records.3. The prosecution case is that on 20.1.1994 at about 12.30 p.m., ASI Ramjit Singh of Police Station Railway Main was on patrol duty at platforms...

Ravi Kumar Narula Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)529; [2001]249ITR480(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (in short, the 'Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Act') :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the true interpretation of Section 2(14) read with Section 2(42A) and 49(1)(ii) and the Explanationns thereto, the Tribunal was right in holding that on the transfer of property No. W-80, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, the assessed had made a short-term capital gains and not long-term capital gains ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75,3. The factual position, as indicated in the statement of the case, is as follows :The assessed during the assessment year in question sold a plot of land measuring 1,000 sq. yards in Greater Kailash-II on January 4, 1974. He had purchased the plot by a sale deed which was registered on Decembe...

A.C. Gupta and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)ACC499; I(2002)ACC312; 2002ACJ312

Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 30, 1990 in FAO No. 90/99. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:On March 27, 1984 at about 9:15 a.m. Shri Vivek Gupta, who was riding a two wheeler was hit by a matador driven by the fourth respondent and belonging to the second and third respondents. Shri Vivek gupta sustained serious head injuries. He succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on the sixth day of the accident. The deceased Shri Vivek Gupta at the time of the incident was only 24 years old. He was a bachelor and was the only son of his parents. He was survived by his father aged 58 years, mother 50 years old and four younger sisters. Shri Vivek Gupta was B.E. (Mechanical) and was working as a Trainee Engineer with M/s. Batliboi & Co. He was drawing a stipend of Rs. 1,300/- per month. On completion of the training, he would have received about Rs. 2,300/- per month from the company....

M.P. Dikshit Vs. Saigal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)907; 90(2001)DLT451

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. On 28.8.98, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner regarding review of the suspension allowance in the light of revision of pay scales by the Vth Pay Commission. The Department was directed to take decision within four weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner. It appears that the decision was not taken within the time fixed by the Court and the present petition was, thereforee, filed by the petitioner for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent. On a notice being issued, respondent has filed reply. Mr. Nathu, Addl. Director of Education, Govt. of NCT, Delhi in his affidavit has at the outset expressed regrets and has apologised for the delay caused in the department in taking decision on the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted in the affidavit that the order of the Court was not communicated to the officers of the respondent by Counsel who had appeared in Court on...

Shanti Devi Goel Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)654; 90(2001)DLT327

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The petitioner was aggrieved by issue of two bills of Rs. 53,308.53 paise and Rs. 53,432.40 paise in respect of K.Nos. 0950445 and 0950453 respectively. Suit for injunction was, thereforee, filed Along with an application for ad-interim injunction was also filed. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court did not consider it a fit case to grant ad-interim injunction. Aggrieved by the orders of the Court below, present revision petition was filed. 2. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met in case the petitioner is directed to deposit 30% of the amount claimed in the two bills. 3. I, accordingly, dispose of this petition with a direction to the petitioner to deposit with the Delhi Vidyut Board 30% of the demand claimed in the aforesaid two bills within six weeks from today. The petitioner will be entitled to adjust the amount which has already been paid f...

Rakesh Kalia Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Del)438

ORDERV. Dongzathang, P.These appeals of the assessed are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) on quantum as well as on penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessed in this case derived income from salary, meeting fee and consultancy. On scrutiny of the details of the documents filed along with the return of income, the assessing officer found that during the year the assessed made a deposit of Rs. 2,55,000 with M/s Melloon Engineers (P) Ltd. The assessed explained that the said amount was received from the NRE account during the Immunity Scheme, 1991, and declaration under the remittance in Foreign Exchange Scheme, 1991, duly verified and issued under the stamp and signature of the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore was also annexed with the return of income. In order to verify the genuineness of the declaration, a reference was made to the State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangalore, and in confir...