Delhi Court April 2001 Judgments

Satish Chaner Saxena Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)174; 92(2001)DLT288; 2001(59)DRJ344

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)1. Petitioner by this writ petition challenges the order dated 29.6.1987, passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who rejected the petitioner's claim for being accepted as a member of respondent No.4/Society. The said order had been challenged in revision before the Lt.Governor, who vide order dated 14.10.1987, dismissed the revision, petition, holding the same to be not maintainable, since it challenged an administrative order.2. Rule in this case was issued on 18.11.1988, and earlier vide order dated 22.4.1988, a plot measuring 300 Sq.yards, had been directed to be kept unallotted. Petitioner, Sh. Satish Chander Saxena is the son of Sh.P.C. Saxena, who was a member of respondent No.4/Society. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sh. P.C. Saxena, in the year 1972, had requested the Society for transfer of membership in favor of his son/petitioner. Such transfer was permissible under the rules since the petitioner was a blood relation.3...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Harbans Lal and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)925

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 assails the order dated 6.3.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge fixing the rateable value at Rs. 15,090 w.e.f 1.12.1998 in respect of flat bearing No. 901, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that the petitioners had issued a notice under Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act proposing a rateable value of Rs. 13,900 w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The submits that no objections were filed to the same and in the absence of any objection or documents, the proposed rateable value of Rs. 13,9000/- w.e.f. 1.4.1986 was maintained. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the respondent had approached the petitioner for rectification.4. The petitioner after considering the pleas of the respondent for rectification changed the date of rateable value from 1.4.1986 to 26.12.1986. R...

S. Ameenul Hasan Rizvi Vs. Press Council of India and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)1046; 91(2001)DLT492; 2001(59)DRJ457

ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner challenges the order of the Press Council of India dated 7th October, 1997. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-On January 2, 1997, an article appeared in 'The Statesman' titled 'Best of Option- Move for national Government'. This article was written by one, Thakur Sen Negi. The petitioner on reading the article was of the opinion that two paragraphs of the article were inflammatory and did not serve the cause of national integration and communal harmony and peace. The petitioner also felt that the article offended the journalistic ethics, public taste and was a clear case of abuse of the freedom of press, constituting professional misconduct. According to the petitioner the two paragraphs of the article contained misleading statements and baseless assertions. The petitioner in order to contradict the statements and assertions made in the said paragraphs of the article and to bring out the correct facts ...

Shailender Kaur Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2779; 91(2001)DLT243

ORDER DATED 28.9.2000.'In modification of the Hdqrs., Circular No. 26/98/CT&T;, AC-V issued vide No. 23161-200/C&T;, AC-V, dated 11.9.1998, regarding externment proceedings against the persons involved in the cases under Section 61/1/14 Excise Act, it is specified that externment proceedings be initiated against the persons convicted under the Excise Act as per provision made in Section 48(f) in the Delhi Police Act.'19. Indeed the DCP (Headquarters) issued a Circular that proceedings for externment be not taken against the persons involved in the offences under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act. The modification order has, on the other hand, modified the above Circular only to the extent that the proceedings may be initiated against the persons who are convicted under the Excise Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 48(f) of the act. But the circular or the externment order will not take away the statutory power vested in the Commissioner of Police in taking into consider...

Pnb Finance Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Del)509; [2001]252ITR491(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.On being moved for reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred the following questions for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Undertaking of the assessed-company acquired by the Government of India under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, was a capital asset, within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the undertaking as a composite unit was different from its components and as such the aggregate of the value of different components of the unit will not be the value of the unit ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gain arising out of the transfer of the undertakin...

M/S. Vishal Printing Press Vs. C.C., New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Custom (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported four used single colour printing machinery. Before 1.4.99, the import of used printing machinery was not restricted. With effect from 1.4.99, the import of used printing machinery requires specific import license. The appellants filed a bill of entry and declared the date in respect of shipment on board of the consignment as 13.4.99. On investigation, it was found that the date of shipment on board to the consignment 13.4.99 and vessel was sent on 13.4.99 i.e. after the change of Exim Policy.The commissioner of Customs (Appeals), ordered confiscation of the goods and gave on option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. five lakh and a penalty of Rs. one lakh was also imposed under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act.4. In this case, the appellants only made a request to reduce the fine and penalty on the gr...

M/S. British Scoffolding India Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. In this case, the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of M.S.Channels and N.A. Iron and Steel bars was denied as inputs on the ground that the appellants had not specifically made any declaration to avail the credit on these inputs.4. The contention of the appellants is that the appellants had declared M.S. rounds and M.S. ANGLES falling under heading 7214.90 of Central Excise Tariff as inputs. The goods, in question, also fall under the same heading. The contention of the appellants is that they had broadly mentioned the inputs in their declaration. The appellants also relied upon the notification No. 7/99 dated 9.2.99 whereby Rules 57 G and 57 T of Central Excise Rules are amended. The contention of the appellants is that as per this amendment, the credit was not to be denied on the ground that the declaration filed under sub Rule (1) does not contain all the detailes required to ...

M/S. Escorts Limited (Msd) Vs. Cce New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the impugned order in appeal dated 22.5.2000 disallowing the benefit of ad hoc exemption Order No.13/3 dated 1.10.93 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in respect of 50 Rajdoot motorcycles donated by them for relief and rehabilitation of the earthquake victims in Maharashtra.2. The appellants donated 50 Rajdoot motor cycles from their factory for the purposes of relief and rehabilitation of the victims in Latur and Osmanabad District in Maharashtra in the year 1993. They claimed the benefit of ad hoc exemption order No.13/3 issued by the Government of India for the purposes of excise duty on the motorcycles. The Assistant Commissioner that the certificate was undated and the certification by the Collector was only in respect of 10 motorcycles and that the certificate was also not submitted within stipulated period of three months from the date of removal of the motorcycles from the fa...

M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC845

1. They duty demand in the present appeal consists of two parts. Demand of about Rs.35 Lakhs is in respect of certain goods bought by the appellants from the market and supplied to the project. Remaining demand of about Rs.12 Lakhs is in respect of notional interest on advances.2. When the matter was taken up for arguments today, Learned Representative of the appellants submitted that M/s. BHEL is a leading manufacturer of electric power supply equipment. The duty demand in the present case relates to their order for supply of certain equipments to M/s. Tata Hydroelectric Power Supply Co. for installation of a Combined Cycle Power Plant at Trombay. He explained that the total contract was for about Rs.28 Crores. Out of this, goods valued around Rs.16 Crores were manufactured by the appellants in their factory at Hardwar and supplied to M/s. Tata Hydroelectric Power Supply Co. at Trombay. They had paid duty on such goods manufactured by them. In terms of the contract, the appellants al...

M/S. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and M/S. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC865

1. In these appeals, the short question that arises for consideration is whether goods imported by the appellants call for anti dumping duty.The facts are as follows : Goods covered by three bills of entry were imported form Korea. The description of the goods in the bills of entry was "STYRENE BUTADIENE CO POLYMERE RESIN KOSYN KHS 68 FROM KOREA". The said goods appeared to attract anti dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 73/2000 dated 22.5.2000. This approach made by the customs authorities was disputed by the importer. They took the stand that anti dumping duty has been imposed only on Styrene Butadiene Rubber, known as SBR of grades 1500, 1700 and 1900. Since the goods imported was not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR), it was contended that no anti dumping duty is leviable on the goods imported. Adjudicating authority, Deputy Commissioner of Customs took the view that imported goods classifiable under sub-heading 3903.90 is subject to anti dumping duty as per notification 73/20...