Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Ipf Vikram India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. For reasons recorded below, we waived the predeposit of duty of Rs.47,00,930.18 confirmed on detergent powder manufactured and cleared by the applicants during the period February 92 to February 97 by inclusion of the cost of HDPE bags (packing material) in the assessable value of the goods and penalty of Rs.10 lakhs imposed upon assessees and proceed to hear and decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.3. We note that the assessees filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending inter-alia that HDPE bags are durable and returnable in nature and hence their cost cannot be included in the assessable value of detergent powder for the purpose of determination of duty, and along therewith, filed an application for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. The assessees were heard on their stay application; however, the lower appellate authority has dismissed the appeal itself witho...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Mehta Cold Forge and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above applications have been filed by the Revenue for condition of delay of about 61/2 years in filing the appeals against Order-in-Original No.43/91 dated 21.5.91 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad dropping the proceedings for demand of duty and penal action against M/s.Mehta Cold Forge and M/s.Nasik Industrial Engineering Corporation and their partners.2. At the outset, we note that in the supplementary appeals, M/s.Mehta Cold Forge has been shown as respondent although the same unit was already shown as respondent in the Revenue's appeal filed within time i.e. E/2217-2218/93-B. Be that as it may, even if the present appeals are to be treated as having been filed against the partners of the units, even then the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. AZO Dyes and Chemicals and Others reported in 2000 (39) RLT 403 will operate against the Revenue. The Larger Bench has held that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in fil...

Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Gallium Equipment (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed at the instance of the revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 12-11-1993 relevant to assessment year 1989-90.2. The solitary ground projects the grievance of the revenue as under:-- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80-I by considering the interest on FDR, Misc. receipts and chit dividend as part of business income entitled to deduction despite the fact that these receipts are not industrial activities carried on by the assessee-company." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while framing assessment did not consider interest income of Rs. 2,46,045 for the purposes of allowing deduction under section 80-I. It was contended before the learned CIT(Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had not considered interest on FDRs amounting to Rs. 76,931 and Rs. 1,69,114 while work...

K. Narendra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeals for asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1987-88 filed by the assessee arise out of the CIT(A)-17, New Delhi's order dt. 25th Feb., 1994 whereas the appeals for asst. yrs. 1988-89 to 1990-91 arise out of the CIT{A)'s order dt. 28th Sept., 1994. As in all the appeals common issue are involved, all the six appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The first issue which is common to all the appeals is disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of damages payable to Land and Development Office (L&DO).3. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide agreement of lease dt.14th Sept., 1961, the assessee was allotted a piece of land situated at Plot No. 5 in Hardings Bridge, New Delhi for construction of building for newspaper press along with reasonable number of residential quarters for staff. Clause-XIII of the agreement also provided that the said land cannot be used for any purpose other than mentioned in the agreement. Clause-XIX provides if the as...

Olga Kazireva Vs. the State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1040; 91(2001)DLT549

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) challenges an order dated 11.4.2001 passed by Special Judge, Delhi remanding the petitioner to police custody in case RC No.5/2001 under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.3. The facts relevant for disposal for this petition,briefly states, are that the petitioner an Uzbek national was arrested by the Customes officers on 28.8.2000 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi while smuggling 27 bags of Chines silk worth 1.56 crores. In the course of disposal of her bail application, learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that there appeared to be some nexus between the petitioner and customs officials and as such, the matter required an enquiry through CBI.In pursuance of these observations and the or...

Salwant Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)576; 2001CriLJ3030; 91(2001)DLT577; 2001(59)DRJ116

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) read with Section 25 of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) is for grant of bail to the petitioner arrested under Section 41(1)(g) of the Code in pursuance of a warrant of arrest dated 30.9.1999 issued by the Court of a Magistrate at Singapore on a charge under Section 420 of the Penal Code of .2. I have heard Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Anil Soni, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3.3. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that a warrant for the arrest of petitioner for an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code of Singapore was issued on 30.9.1999 by a Magistrate at Singapore. It was a non-bailable warrant directed to the Commissioner of Police and all other police officers of singapore to arrest the peti...

The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. M/S. Nirulas and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)43; 92(2001)DLT97

ORDERA. K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of possession in respect of Premises No. 9283 & 3089 (old) - N-1 And N-5/2 (New) in the property known a 'N' Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter to be called as 'suit property' for short).2. While the suit is pending adjudication, this is No.14256/92 has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs for wrongful use and occupation of the premises in question with further direction to the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month as damages till the disposal of the suit. For determining the issue involved in this IA, it would be appropriate to have a glance at the pleadings.3. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property which was purchased by the plaintiff in an open auction dated 16th March, 1961 by the Ministry of Rehabilitation through Chief Settlement Commissioner, Department of Rehabilitation (Now Ministry of Home Affairs). T...

Shantaben Karasanbhai Patel and Others Vs. S.C. JaIn and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)758; 92(2001)DLT757; 2001(3)RAJ277

ORDERA.K.Sikri,J.1. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaintiffs trade Marks'NIRMA'. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the trustees of Shri S.K.Patel Family Trust trading under the name and style of M/s. Nirma Chemical Works Limited. Plaintiff no.4,namely, Nirma Chemical Works Limited is an incorporated Company under the Indian Companies Act which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and Markseting washing powder, salt, match boxes, etc. for the last so many years. They are carrying on their business under the tradeMarks 'NIRMA' which according to them is an invented word and is in use by the plaintiffs since 1969. They also got the tradeMarks 'NIRMA' registered under the Trade and Merchandise Markss Act, 1958 in respect of various goods in IVth Schedule of classification of goods as prescribed under the Trade and Merchandise Markss Rules, 1959. The tradeMarks NIRMA is registered under Class III in ...

Rashida Begum (Since Deceased Now Represented Through Lrs.) Vs. Union ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)716; 91(2001)DLT664; 2001(59)DRJ554

ORDER XLI (APPEALS FROM ORIGINAL DECREES) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Rule:11 Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to Lower Court -(1) The appellate Court, after sending for the record if it thinks fit so to do, and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his p leader and hearing him accordingly if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleaser. (2) If on the day fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. (3) The dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. (4) Where an Appellate Court, not being the High Court, dismisses an appeal under sub-rule (1), it shall deliver a judgment, recording in brief its grounds for doing so, and...

Sh. P.D. Khanna and ors. Vs. Sh. Ashwani Khanna and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)20; [2001]106CompCas138(Delhi); 92(2001)DLT18; 2001(59)DRJ263; 2002(1)RAJ344

ORDERA. K. Sikri, J.1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Bank of India( hereinafter called the 'applicant bank') which is seeking an order for allowing it to appropriate a sum of Rs.67,46,090.47 paisa + Rs. 19,65,086.93 paisa outstanding in the account of M/s Prem Engineering Works and M/s Okhla Ice & Food Products respectively.2. It may be mentioned that OMP 93/99 is the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short 'Act'). By means of this petition, petitioners have filed objections to the award dated 1st January, 1999 passed by Sh. Navin Pal Singh Bhandari who was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. Vide this award the Arbitrator has decided certain disputes between the parties who are related to each other. These parties which form five Groups and are described as Groups A,B,C,D & E were doing various businesses in different names and styles. Some of these business firms had taken loans from various banks. Two such business units ...