Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Central Bank Officers Union and Others Vs. Central Bank of India and A ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ82

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the issues raised int he present petitions are similar, by this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of all the writ petitions.2. The petitioners herein are officers of the Central Bank of India. They were promoted from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III. It is an admitted fact that the post of MMG Scale-III is a selection post. While, however, promoting the petitioners herein from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III, posting orders were also made by the respondents to various zones of India, which according to the petitioners are in total violation of the established norms and guidelines issued and followed by the bank in that regard. The petitioners herein, more particularly, have challenged the legality of the circular dated 5.5.99 issued by the respondent/bank whereby the bank has amalgamated two regions of Delhi Regions A and B to one region and also amalgamated two zones of Calcutta into one for placement purposes but leaving the Mumbai Central ...

Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 91(2001)DLT369; 2001(58)DRJ692

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 917/99 titled Siya Ram Silk Mills Limited v. Unknown Persons, under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 420/485/486, IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint under the above sections on the basis of which search warrants issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Search was carried out and some suit lengths were recovered from petitioner No. 2. Police registered DD No. 15-A dated 18th August, 1999 at Police Station Chandni Chowk and filed the challan. Trial Court took cognizance. It is argued that dispute between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 have been completely and fully settled. In terms of the compromise Govind Ram, petitioner No. 2 has given an undertaking that they will not deal with duplicate Siya Ram Fabrics would help the petitioner No. 1 to trace the source. Petition is d...

Cit Vs. Krishan Kumar Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)70

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.These two reference applications involve the following common question, which has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-D (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') pursuant to the direction given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for the opinion of this court 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the land in question was agricultural land and, thereforee, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the land was not taxable.'The dispute relates to assessment year 1972-73. 2. Factual position in nutshell is as follows : assesses Krishan Kumar Kapoor and R. K. Kapoor who are the sons of one Murlidhar Kapoor, inherited separate pieces of land from their father wherein agricultural operations were carried on till 1949-50, when in each case assessed's land was requisitioned by the Punjab Government for ext...

Rainforest Cafe, Inc. Vs. Rainforest Cafe and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)941; 91(2001)DLT508

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This order shall dispose off is No. 341/2000 being the plaintiff's application for the issuance of ex-parte ad interim injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX and I.A. 342/2000 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 and is 2310/2000 which is the corresponding application of the defendants filed under Rule 4 of the same Order. At the first hearing the following order had been passed :'13.1.2000Present : Mr. P. Chidambram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Kumar and Ms. Meghna Mishra for the plaintiff.S. No. 72/2000 :Let the plaint be registered.Issue summons to defendants both by ordinary process as well as registered A.D. posts on plaintiff's filing process fee and registered A.D. covers, return able on 24.3.2000.Notice returnable on 24.3.2000.I have perused the petition and the documents filed Along with it. Mr. Chidambram, learned. Sr. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff had already obtained registration for its name an...

Kailash Chander Sharma Vs. Nirmala Wati

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)635; 92(2001)DLT103; 2001(59)DRJ388

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This application under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') has been filed by the respondent/landlord for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent Smt. Nirmala Wati on record, who died on 6.11.2000. The application has been filed on 23.1.2001, that is, within the prescribed period. It has been objected to by the petitioner/revisionist/tenant on the ground that the cause of action does not survive or devolve on any person as eviction had been obtained under the provisions of Section 14(D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This objection is without merit since a valuable right has fructified in favor of the deceased the fruits of which can be enjoyed by her legal heirs. The next objection is that since the revision petition has already been decided on 18.2.2000, the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 are inapplicable. This objection is also withou...

M/S. Oswal Suggars Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants manufacture 'Sugar' falling under tariff Heading 17.01 to the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise, Pathankot vide his Order dt. 7.7.95 denied the modvat credit totally amounting to Rs. 39,207.13 availed by the appellants on the items "valves & Gaskets, ERW pipes, Bolts & Nuts, Impellar, and spares for Safety valves" as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise further imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- on the party.2. The appeal of the party stood dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his Order dt. 15.11.99.3. This is the second stage appeal filed by the party. I have heard Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents. I have considered the submissions made before me by both the sides. It is observed that the issue relating to modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57-Q now stands s...

Cce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Jct Electronics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the matter relates to the modvat credit taken by the respondents beyond the period of six months after the date of the invoice. Under Notification No.28/95-CE(NT)dated 29.6.95 it was provided that the modvat credit was to be taken out of a period of six months from the date of the relevant documents. In this case the learned Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)had taken a view that as the Notification dated 29.6.95 had no retrospective effect, the invoice issued prior to this date will not be hit by the modvat limitation and the movdat credit could be taken without any time limit.2. When the matter was called no one appeared for the respondents. The notice for today's hearing was sent on 16.3.2000. There is no response.Earlier the matter came up on 7.3.2001 when also no one was present for the respondents.Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that the matter is covered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Kusum Ingots Vs.CEE Ingots Vs...

M/S. Mahesh Iron and Steel Rolling Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. When the matter is called, there is no one present for the appellants. They have been issued notice of hearing for this date on 23.2.2001 by the Registry. There is no communication from the appellants either requesting adjourment or giving reasons for their absence. It therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution....

M/S. Hindustan Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC626

1. On 26.6.98 Central Excise officers of Preventive Division, Faridabad visited the manufacturing premises of M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd., who are engaged in the manufacture of steel wire, LPG cylinders, SC valves and regulators and came across agreements between the assessee and various Oil Companies viz. M/s. IOC, M/s. BPCC Ltd. and HPC for supply of LPG cylinders with valves and regulators. According to the agreement the goods were to be despatched preferably by rail "freight prepaid".The Oil Companies had the right to require the assessee to despatch the goods by road and in such cases, Oil Companies were to pay the actual freight charges incurred by the assessees. Insurance policies showed that the goods sold were insured by the assessees till the goods reached the buyers premises so the value of the goods at the place of sale was held to be the basis for assessment to duty under the Central Excise Act. Freight and insurance charges were held to be includible in the assessable valu...

C.C.E., Delhi Vs. M/S. Haryana Telecom. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The respondents manufacture "Jelly filled Telephone Cables and Wires" Falling under Chapter heading 8544 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed modvat credit totally amounting to Rs.2,29,129/- on wires & cables as capital goods under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vide his Order dt. 23.3.98 observed that wires & cables were being used by the party for supply of electrical power to machines/meters and plant. He also observed that these are not used for producing or processing any goods or for bringing about any change in substance for manufacture of final product and thus they did not fall under the definition of capital goods. Accordingly, the Asst.Commissioner in his Order disallowed modvat credit of the aforestated amount to the respondents a part from imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on them.2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals). New Delhi vide his Order dt.27-9-99 allowed the appeal of the...