Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Ataul Haque Vs. the Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)159; 90(2001)DLT188; 2000(57)DRJ749

O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. All intervener applications are allowed.These two writ petitions raise a common question for consideration viz. whether candidates who have passed B.Ed. are qualified/eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi?2. Briefly stated the circumstances under which this controversy has arisen are as follows:On the request of MCD, the Delhi subordinate Service Selection Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued an advertisement in the newspaper 'The Hindustan Times' dated 21.9.2000 for recruitment of 1500 Assistant Teachers (Primary), Hindi. Recruitment rules, copy of which was sent to DSSSB, prescribe the following qualifications for primary teachers: A(i) Higher Secondary pass of recognised Board/University with an elective subject in the metric level.(II) Two year Teacher training certificate from the recognised institutionORB(i) Intermediate or equivalent from a recognised Board/University with an elective subject in the required l...

Cit Vs. Sheo Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]117TAXMAN347(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was, in law, right in holding that the land in question was not agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was, right in law in holding that the area covered by the Gaon Sabha concerned constituted an area which was comprised within the jurisdiction of 'municipality' within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act ?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1974-75. The issue before the authorities, as is evident from the questions, was whether the land which form the subject-matter of dispute was agricultural land within ...

M/S. Pack Plast Industries Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed before him on account of failure of the appellants to deposit duty amount of Rs.6,09,469/-. The ld. Counsel representing the appellants submits that the dismissal of the appeal is highly arbitrary and unjustified in the facts of this case. The goods involved are PVC plastic profiles and the processes carried out by the appellants are only in the nature of cutting to size etc. Carrying out of such processes would not amount to manufacture attracting levy of duty in the light of the decisions of the Tribunal in the Elecon Engineering case etc. The Revenue's appeal against that order is pending before the Supreme Court. Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) himself has noted in his order dated 8.2.2000 that "there is considerable force in the arguments" raised before him by the appellants. The ld. Counsel submits that as the appellant has a strong prima facie case, this was a fit case for waiving of pre-deposi...

M/S. General Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT109TriDel

1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel products and were availing the benefit of MODVAT credit and are also sending the material out side the factory under Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules to various job workers. During the period 24.12.97 to 27.9.98 raw materials were sent out side the factory to various job workers and the goods could not be brought back in the factory within a period of 60 days as per the provisions of rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules. On 8.10.98, the appellants wrote to the Assistant Commissioner for extension of time beyond the period of 60 days as provided under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules. The extension of period beyond 60 days was declined by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that Rule 57F was amended by Notification No. 15/98(NT) dated 2.6.98 and the power to grant extension ...

Smt. Shashi Oberoi Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT85TriDel

1. This is an application, filed by Ms. Shashi Oberoi, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Application filed a Bill of Entry No. 113308 dated 14.10.1998 for clearing a Toyota Prado Car; that a show cause notice dated 14.12.1998 was issued to her for confiscation of car and imposition of penalty; that she was granted a personal hearing by the Commissioner on 14.1.1999 and a Note sheet Order was passed in which the vehicle was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed.the learned Advocate submitted that as the Applicant did not receive the detailed Order, she visited the office of the Respondent on a number of occasions and also wrote several letters; that an appeal against the Note-sheet Order was filed on 5.10.1999; that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that it...

M/S. Dindayal Aushadhi (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC217

1. M/s. Dindayal Aushadhi (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by Order-in-appeal No. 1040/99 dated 6.8.99 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal confirming the demand of Modvat credit.2. Shri Ravi Holani, learned C.A., submitted that the Appellants initially availed benefit of full exemption of payment of duty upto first clearance of Rs.30 lakhs and thereafter claimed the benefit of Modvat credit by filing declaration; that as declaration was filed late by one month they requested for condonation under provisions of Rule 57G (5); that as no action had been taken by the Department they had taken the Credit on 8.2.96 in their RG-23A, Part-II; that the Asstt.Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 174/96 dated 24.10.96 disallowed the Modvat credit and imposed a penalty on the ground that the inputs were received in April, and May, 1995 the credit of which had been taken in February, 1996 which is after six months of the date of issue of the duty paying documents and t...

M/S. Pioneer Auto Industries Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants were issued a Show Cause Notice dt. 31.12.94 by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana, in which it was alleged that they had taken modvat credit of Rs.80,594/- on the strength of invoices issued by the suppliers of raw materials in respect of whom, it had not been established by providing necessary evidence that they were the wholesale dealers/distributors of the manufacturers. It was further alleged in this notice that the party had taken modvat credit of Rs.1,175.02 on the basis of invoice issued by supplier who had not got himself registered with the Central Excise Department for the purpose of issuing invoices under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1994. It is therefore alleged that appellants had wrongly availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.81,769.02 in contravention of Rule 57-A and 57-G read with Notfn. No.15/94-CE(NT) dt. 30.3.94. They were therefore, called upon to show cause why the aforestated amount of modvat credit should not be d...

M/S Eastern Sales Corporation Vs. M/S Premium Apparels (P) Ltd and Ano ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)527

ORDERJ.D.Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for recovery filed under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code. Summons of the suit were issued in Form No.4 in Appendix B. On behalf of the defendants, their counsel appeared on 17.8.2000. Thus it is presumed that defendants were duly served with the summons though vide report dated 1.11.2000 they were reported to be out of station. Till date the defendants have failed to enter into an appearance though they were required to enter into appearance within ten days of the service of the summons.2. Rule 3 requires the defendant to enter an appearance either in person or by pleader within ten days of service of the summons of the suit. It further provides that in case the defendant can not defend the suit unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed, to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, together w...

M/S Manohar Singh and Sons Vs. Sandeep Co-operative Group Housing Soci ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(3)RAJ200

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. These are two petitions, one (OMP 218/99) under Section 9 & another (AA 48/2000) under section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, moved by the petitioner, which are required to be decided together.2. Though the Arbitrator was appointed after the petitioner approached this Court for appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, yet the counsel for the petitioner has apprehension that he may not be fairly dealt with by the Arbitrator already appointed by the Architect of the respondent-Society. The appointed by the Architect of the respondent-Society. The main bone of contention between the parties is the non-payment of amount spent by the petitioner in raising construction of 220 Flats. However in the letter dated 26th January, 2000 sent to the Architect of the Society, the petitioner had stated that the work of construction of flats was almost complete and more that Rs. two crores have been held up by the Society, whereas the...

M/S Narsingh Dass and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Arun and Rajiv Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)694

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Counsel for the defendant states that inspire of contacting the defendant he has not received any instructions and he may be discharged from the case. The request is allowed.2. This is a suit for recovery filed under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code Summons of the suit were issued in Form No.4 in Appendix B. The summons were duly served upon defendant on 31.10.2000 and defendant entered into appearance on 23.1.2001. Defendant was required to enter into an appearance within ten days of the service of the summons.3. Rule 3 requires defendant to enter an appearance either in person or by pleader within ten days of service of the summons of the suit. It further provides that in case the defendant can not defend the suit unless he enters an appearance and in default of his entering an appearance the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the sum mentioned in the summons, toge...