Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. S.K. Bansal Steel and Alloys

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. Notice sent to the respondents for today's hearing has been received back with the remarks ;factory lying closed'. There is no other address of the respondents on the file for sending them fresh notice. It is only a reference application moved by the Revenue and as such I proceed to decide the same.2. This reference application has been directed by the Revenue against the Final Order No. A/1267/98-NB dated 10.12.98 for making reference of the question to the High Court as to whether penalty under sub-rule 4 of the Rule 57 I which was embodied in that Rule on 23.7.96, can be imposed for an infringement committed prior to that (i.e.during April -June, 1992), when show cause notice was issued on 12.1.97 after the insertion of this sub-rule." The Tribunal has taken the view, while accepting the appeal of the respondents against Order-in-Appeal No.309/CE/JPR/JR/98 dated 1.6.98 passed by the Commissioner who upheld the Order-in-Original...

P.C. Gupta Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is a second appeal against order dated 17.9.2001 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in First Appeal No. 6/2001 against order dated 20.8,2001 passed by the concerned Recovery Officer of that Tribunal.2. The appellant claims that he was in possession of a property of the judgment-debtor and has illegally been evicted from the same. He made the same grievance before DRT-II, Delhi by filing an appeal before it impugning the order of the Recovery Officer whereby he was directed to be evicted. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT in the impugned order came to a conclusion that the appeal before him had become infructuous as the appellant had already been evicted from the mortgaged property pursuant to the order of the Recovery Officer dated 20.8.2001. He, however, dismissed the appeal on merit as well saying that the appellant was admitted as a tenant in the property in question in the year 1994, after the preliminary decree for realisation of the debt had already been passed b...

Haresh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT28

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 31-10-01 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by eh appellant herein praying for the following reliefs was dismissed:(a) Issue a writ or writs including writ of certiorari quashing illegal, arbitrary and malafide allotment of petrol pump in favor of respondent No. 4. (b) Declare that the respondent No. 4 is not eligible to participate in auction as per terms and conditions of advertisement. (c) Declare that the acceptance of the alternative site at village Neori on Baskhari to Autraulia Azamgarh High way by the respondent is in violation of terms and conditions of auction and the advertisement for the auction and also the orders of this Court. 2. A writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation was filed questioning allotment of retail outlet/petrol pump at Padampur Crossing, on Budhanpur Kamaria, Distt Faizabad to one Smt Bimla Mishra. It is not in dispute...

Om Petro Chemicals Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(140)ELT353(Del)

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How far and to what extent equity between the parties in the facts and circumstances of the case can be adjusted is the principal question involved in this writ petition.2. Before adverting to issues involved in this matter a brief overview of facts may be noticed. 468 MTs of fuel oil was imported by the petitioner in the second week of September, 1999. The consignment was discharged in 26 containers and value thereof is estimated at 44974.80 US$. It is not in dispute that guidelines issued by the Union of India as was existing on the date of issuance of the bills of lading and date of testing of the imported goods was different. Bills of entries were filed seeking clearance of goods for home consumption in September, 1999. Samples of goods were tested. They were again tested at the instance of the petitioner by Sri Ram Institute. Tests at the instance of the department were carried out by CRCL on 24.8.99 and report submitted thereafter indicated that the sample con...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Blaze Advertising (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT404

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal) has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 18823/- incurred prior to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1974-75 in computing taxable income for assessment year 1974-75?2. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessed, raised two preliminary objections in the matter. Learned counsel would contend that in the absence of the order of the Tribunal, passed under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court cannot effectively answer the question. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on CIT v. Bombay Master Printers Association : [1984]146ITR339(Bom) , Mar Thoma Rubber Co. Ltd. v. CIT 102 C T R 9, and CIT v. ITAT : [1998]232ITR207(Delhi) .3. He would next contend that in any event, as the amount of ...

Amit Aggarwal Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT368; 2002(61)DRJ454

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petition is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the FIR No. 102/2001 under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act) read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and to direct registration of an FIR for alleged offence committed by the police officials and the officials of Delhi Vidyut Board imp leaded as respondents 4 to 6. The petition has also sought suitable compensation for his alleged illegal arrest.2. The petition is the proprietor of M/s. Amit Electrical stated to be carrying on the electrical repairs business from shop situated at 2/38, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner alleges that he applied for an independent electricity connection in the year 2000 and pending such electricity connection was carrying on the job with the help of a generator. Inspection is stated to have been carried out by the officials of the DVB on 12.4.2001 when direct theft of electricity was found at various floors of the building construc...

Om Prakash Vs. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ2138; 95(2002)DLT339; 2002(61)DRJ481

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal against the order of externment against him dated 9.2.2001 passed under Section 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act (for short the Act).2. The petitioner states that he is running a cable business in Shahdra and that he is being victimised as a result of his refusal to act as a stock witness in criminal cases. A show cause notice dated 11.5.99 was issued by the then Addl.Dy.CP, North East District, Delhi under Section 47/50 of the Act where a list of 20 cases against the petitioner was given. it was stated in the notice that petitioner was engaged in the commission of crime involving offences punishable under IPC, NDPC & Arms Act. The notice states that the petitioner's being large in Delhi or any part thereof is hazardous to the community and that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against the petitioner by reason of apprehension on their part as regards, the safety of their...

Kaukab Naqvi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi240; 95(2002)DLT766; 2002(63)DRJ207

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the Circular/decision published in the Hindustan Times dated 11.5.1997, regarding concessions made available in rail fare to certain categories of handicapped persons. Petitioner is aggrieved as deaf and dumb persons, though eligible for 50% concessional fare, have not been provide the facilities of any rail concession for an attendant/escort accompanying the deaf and dumb passenger. This facility of concessional fare for the escort/attendant has been confined to blind persons, T.B. patients, mentally retarded persons, thalassamia and major disease patients as well as cardiac patients etc.2. The petitioner's case is that his sister, who is deaf and dumb, was residing in Amroha, U.P. She is required to regularly come to Delhi for treatment. The Chief Medical Officer, Muradabad in a medical certificate issued, certified that she needed an escort. The printed form also carried the following notation:-'This is a permanent di...

Veer Mohd Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT663

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. How far and to what extent a policy decision as regards grant of compassionate appointment can be implemented is the question involved in this Letters Patent Appeal which has arisen out of a judgment and order dated 19-7-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge in CWP 7694/99. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. One Roshan Khan was a regular employee of Municipal Corporation of Delhi in its Horticulture Department. He died on 6-4-1983. The appellant filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds stating that he had attained the age of 18 years. In fact, however, the appellant was a minor at the relevant time. The said application was rejected. An industrial dispute was raised leading to a reference by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal in the following terms:- 'Whether Sh Veer Mohd s/o late Sh. Roshan Khan, Mali is entitled to be appointed on a suitable post on compassionate grounds and if so, what directions are nece...

Sidh Shri Baba Balaknath Mandir, Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT675; 2002(61)DRJ828

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) By this order, I would be disposing of C.M.No.12395/2001, an application moved by the petitioner for directions to allow the petitioner to raise a boundary wall on plot No. R-6, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, allotted to it for the purpose of construction of a temple. The petitioner also seeks a direction to restrain the neighbour Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Education & Welfare Society (Regd.), and Gurudawara Shri Guru Singh Sabha from causing any obstruction. Directions are also sought to the S.H.O. Police Station Mukerjee Nagar to render assistance for ensuring peaceful construction of the boundary wall.(2) This case has a checkered history and the essential facts and proceedings relevant for the purposes of deciding the present application are being noticed.(3) Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allow construction of the temple at the site in question, namely, R-6 Hudson Lines. The pet...