Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

M/S. Sapna Foam Udyog Vs. Cce, New Delhi Iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri Naveen Mullick, 1d.Advocate arguing the case for restoration of the appeal submits that the order of dimissal of the appeal which was passed on 2.1.98 was received by the applicant and the applicant had submitted a letter dated 3.1.98 which was received had intimated that an amount of Rs.47,000/- as 50% of the duty ordered to be pre-deposited was deposited and prayed for condonation of delay in depositing the money and restoring the appeal. He submits that an application was filed by the applicant stating that the amount has now been deposited and that the appeal may be restored Ld.Counsel submits that the appellant was accepting the decision of the Tribunal in their appeal for restoration of the appeal.2. Shri Ashok Mehta, 1d.DR submits that there has been a delay of more than three years in this case in filing the application for restoration of the appeal. He submits that this delay under no circumstances should be condoned. He, therefore prays that the application may be re...

Shri A.P. Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)845; 92(2001)DLT270; 2001(59)DRJ354

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J (Oral) Rule.1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus for allotment of flat in New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979. The petitioner claims that he had already deposited a sum of Rs.1500/- at the time of booking in the year 1979. The petitioner was allotted flat (LIG) No.A-3/182-D, Kondli, Delhi under the said scheme, as per the list released by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the balance amount payable for allotment and handing over the possession of the flat.3. Counter affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder has also been filed. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be briefly noted:The petitioner had got himself registered for a L.I.G. flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, vide registration No.55048, priority No.32673, after making a deposit of Rs.150/-. The p...

M/S Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Excel International and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)84; 92(2001)DLT145; 2001(60)DRJ492

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) CPC for granting leave to defend in the above suit filed under Order xxxvII CPC by the plaintiff-M/s Dentsply India Pvt. Ltd.2. The suit, filed on behalf of the plaintiff avers as follows:(a) That the plaintiff is the manufacturer and marketeer of various Dental Equipments;(b) That the defendant No.1 is a partnership concern and defendants 2 & 3 are its partners;(c) That the defendant No.1 was appointed as a Distributor for the region of Delhi, Rajasthan and Haryana by letter dated 1st of January, 1996 for the products manufactured by the plaintiff;(d) That however, no formal written agreement was executed between the parties;(e) That the plaintiff has been supplying the goods to the defendants from March, 1996 till December, 1998 under various invoices; (f) That the sales have been made by approximately 647 Nos. of invoices amounting to Rs.5,52,87,497.03 (Rupees Five Crores Fifty Tw...

M/S Shannon and Shannon Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)974; 2001(60)DRJ251; 2002(1)RAJ582

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral)1. Award dated 12th March, 1999 was filed on 21st April, 1993 for making it a rule of the Court. 2. For the sake of brevity I deem it needless to refer to catena of authorities having unvarying unanimous current of opinion as to the role of the Court in dealing with the award.3. Recently the Supreme Court in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. Vs . Union of India & Anr. : AIR1999SC3804 has laid down the following guidelines as to the rule of the Court in accepting, remitting or rejecting the award.'Reappraisal of evidence by the Court is not permissible and as a matter of fact exercise of power by the Court to reappraise the evidence is unknown to proceedings under Section 30 of the Arbitration act. In the event of there being no reasons in the award, question of interference of the Court would not arise at all. In the event however, there are reasons, the interference would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the Court unless of course, there exists a tota...

Shri N.S. Bhatnagar Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)843; 92(2001)DLT301; 2001(59)DRJ488; [2001(91)FLR330]

ORDERSharda Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner has directed this petition against the orders dated 20th May, 1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petitioner's OA.No.1012/98. The petitioner in the application before the Tribunal had challenged the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing upon him a penalty of cut of 10% amount from his pension for a period of five years. The petitioner had sought the following three reliefs before the Tribunal:a) Pass a writ, order or direction to call for the records in the disciplinary case in respect of the applicant and after perusing the same, quash the order dated 16.10.1996 baring No.14033/3/91-UT.b) Pass a writ, order or direction consequently, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release to the applicant his entire pension from the date of the said order dated 16.10.1996 and also directed the respondents to continue paying the applicant his full pension as p...

Shri Sat Pal Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT521

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with a further relief that the petitioner should be paid all arrears of pay, benefits and other consequential reliefs arising out of his reinstatement.2. While the petitioner was working in the Indian Army a criminal case was registered against him on the allegation that on or about 2nd and 3rd January, 1986 the petitioner committed murder of his sister-in-law. The designated court, Rohtak, Haryana conducted the trial in the aforesaid criminal case registered under section 302 IPC and numbered as Sessions Case No.109/1986. By a judgment/order dated 25.9.1987 the designated court convicted the petitioner under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25 of the Arms Act and section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The petitioner filed, a criminal Appeal No.420/1988 i...

Vishakha Devi and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2001)ACC316; II(2001)ACC504; 2002ACJ2076; 92(2001)DLT389

ORDER1. This is a letters patent appeal directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th September, 2000.2. Mr. Ram Avtar Gupta, a Sales Supervisor working in a private firm, met with an accident on 21st February, 1988. He died on the spot as a result of the accident. He was survived by the appellants, viz., wife and four children. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') awarded compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- Along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the wife and children of the deceased who are the appellants before us. Not satisfied with the award, the matter was carried in appeal by the appellants. The learned Sub Judge while enhancing the compensation to Rs. 2,61,000/- did not disturb the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.3. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs. 1,450/- per months. The Tribunal for the purposes of computing the compensa...

Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]253ITR745(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution'), questioning the correctness of an order passed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VI (in short 'the Commissioner'). By the said impugned order dated November 3, 2000, penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Act by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS Range : 28 (hereinafter described as 'the Assessing Officer') was upheld.A brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary before we deal with the petitioner's main stand that no penalty was imposable. The petitionerfiled its salary tax deducted at source (in short 'IDS') return in Form No. 24. On verification of the same, the Assessing Officer found that IDS in respect of one expatriate employee was not deducted properly. Orders under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act were passed working out short deduction of ...

Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)394

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Constitution'), questioning correctness of an order passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi XI (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner'). By the said impugned order dated 3-11-2000, penalty imposed under section 271C of the Act by Additional Commissioner, TDS Range 28 (hereinafter referred to as 'assessing officer') was upheld.2. Brief reference to the factual aspect would be necessary before we deal with the petitioners main stand that no penalty was imposable. Petitioner filed its salary tax deducted at source (hereinafter referred to as 'TDS') return in Form No. 24. On verification of the same, the assessing officer found that TDS in respect of one expatriate employee was not deducted properly. Orders under section 201/201(1A) of the Act were passed...

M/S. Jaipur Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1373TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 28.3.2000 issued on 10.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had upheld the order in original dated 16.10.98 of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise confirming demand of Rs.2,71,003/- under Section 11-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of the equal amount under Section 11-AC of the Act and another penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules on them.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled strips falling under sub-heading 7211.51 of the CETA. The Preventive officers paid a surprise visit to their factory on 23.4.94 and found that there was shortage of 7.8019 MT of CR strips (finished product) and 40.420 MT of HR coils raw material). It also revealed that they were maintaining private weighment register giving details of the description of the CR strips. Shri Madhusudan Chand, Works Manager of the appell...