Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. J.K. Forgings Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application is for waiver of penalty amount of Rs. 40,000/- and for stay of recovery thereof. On the basis of shortage of raw materials found by officers of the Central Excise department, who visited the applicant's factory, the department by show-cause notice proposed to recover an amount of Rs. 81,210/- towards duty of excise on the raw materials found short and also to impose penalty on the applicants. The party contested the notice. The Assistant Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, confirmed the demand against the party and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 80,000/-. In the appeal filed against the Assistant Commissioner's order to the Commissioner (Appeals), the latter reduced the penalty to Rs. 40,000/- and upheld the order of the adjudicating authority on other counts. Hence the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Heard ld. advocate, Sh. M.L. Gupta for the applicants and ld. DR Sh.J. Singh for the respondents.3. On examination of records and the submissions made by both...

Chiranji Lal Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3527; 93(2001)DLT189; 2001(59)DRJ817

ORDERUsha Mehra, J. 1. Appellant Chiranji Lal has felt aggrieved with the order of his conviction under Section 302 IPC thereby sentencing him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. He has assailed his conviction & sentence primarily on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge having acquitted the co-accused Hira Lal after disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he could not have convicted the appellant on the basis of that evidence.2. The factual matrix of this case is that Hira Lal was the owner of House No. B-392, JJ Colony, Hastsal, Delhi. Deceased Smt. Bhagwati was the tenant of one room on the first floor of that house. Shish Mohan (PW-7) was tenant of another room on the first floor. His room was adjacent to the room of deceased Smt. Bhagwati. There was a perennial dispute between the landlord Hira Lal and the tenant Smt. Bhagwati because landlord wanted her to vacate the tenanted premises but she ref...

Prahlad Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT850; 2001(59)DRJ350

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Appellant Prahlad has assailed the order of his conviction under Section 364/302/201 IPC and the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentencing to him life of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for six months under Section 302 IPC, 10 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for six months under Section 364-A IPC. He was further sentenced imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for six months under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.2. Mr. Rajeev Awasthi counsel for the appellant contended that case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. There was no eye winters to the occurrence. and the circumstantial evidence of last seen adduced by the prosecution suffer from a under of infirmities. Prosecution in order to prove the last seen circumstance adduced the evidence of Ramji (PW-2) and Ramu (PW-11) would shop that they are planted subsequently. Their statements under...

Parbat Singh @ Partap Singh Vs. the State, Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT290; 2001(59)DRJ712

ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J.1. An Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Parbat Singh @Partap Singh for committing offence or murder of Mota and Ms. Dhapa under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant is aggrieved and has filed the present appeal.2. The facts, as disclosed by the FIR and the evidence led by the prosecution, are that the complainant Ms. Meera along with her husband, father-in-law Mota (since deceased) and an aunt of her husband Ms. Dhapa (also deceased), was residing in a jhuggi in AG-Block, near DESU Sub-Station, in Shalimar Bagh. Her family was using a space adjoining that jhuggi for bathing and cleaning of clothes. On that space the appellant Parbat Singh @Partap Singh erected a jhuggi about two or three month before the occurrence which led to frequent quarrels between him and the family of the complainant. On the ...

Lt. Col. R.K. Saxena Vs. Imperial Forestry Corporation Ltd., Official ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas401(Delhi); 1(2001)DLT777; 2001(60)DRJ54

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is that whether the requirement of petition to the advertised in one of the issues of Official Gazette of, the State or Union territory concerned, as provided in Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') can be dispensed with.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant filed a petition under sub-section (1) of Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the respondent Company. The said company petition was admitted for hearing and a provisional liquidator was appointed on 10.6.1998. No direction was given to advertise the petition, as required under rule 24 of the Rules. Application (CA.631/2000) was filed by the appellant for directions to advertise the petition praying further that while directing the petition to be advertised in a daily newspaper in English language and daily newspaper in regional language circulating in Delhi, requirement of advertising the petit...

Delhi Tempo Transport Union (Regd.) Vs. Delhi Development Authority an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT337; 2001(60)DRJ137

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J1. Petitioner confines its prayer in the writ petition to allotment of an alternate site for the parking of the tempos and commercial vehicles of its members. The shifting and non-availability of tempos and commercial vehicles, which cater to the needs of the Ajmeri Gate market could adversely affect the trading activities. Besides, there is also the humane need to rehabilitate the members of the petitioner, who would be dis-located as a result of the development of the Ajmeri Gate complex. Considering these factors, the Court vide orders dated 11.5.2001 and 18.5.2001 directed the respondent/DDA to consider earmarking of a temporary site, where, in the interregnum, the tempos, not only of the petitioner but of others also could be parked. Respondent/DDA had duly considered the matter. Mr.S.Roy, Director (CL) and Ms. Savita Bhandari, Director (Landscape) of DDA were present in Court on 18.5.2001 and had indicated the site/space on the Tagore Road, where the members...

M/S. Helpage India Vs. M/S. Helpage Garhwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi499; 98(2002)DLT752

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A.10583/98 field under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC by the plaintiff and I.A.3977/99 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with section 151 CPC by the defendant for vacation of the order dated 30th November 1998.2. Suit was filed by the plaintiff, interalia, alleging that it is a non-Government organisation founded in the year 1978. Plaintiff organisation extends services to the elderly people throughout India by providing consultancy, training and financial support through 531 voluntary agencies. These voluntary agencies have taken up the cause of aged persons through 1400 service projects. Plaintiff organisation has provided financial grants of over Rs.100 crores to these agencies. It is further alleged that the name of plaintiff organisation was conceived and adopted in 1978 and on account of long, extensive and continuous user thereof the name has achieved a reputation in India as also broad. Plaintiff's ap...

Cit Vs. Brig. Kapil Mohan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN226(Delhi)

Heard the learned counsel for the revenue.At the instance of the revenue following questions have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 64(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not apply to the shares received by the assessed and thereby deleting the dividend income of Rs. 47,757 from his taxable income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the trust settled for the benefit of the sole beneficiary, 1st son of Shri Rakesh Mohan who was unborn at the time of creation of the trust, is a valid trust.'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87.3. So far as the first issue is concerned, our judgment in CWT/CIT v. Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan : [2001]251ITR386(De...

Cwt Vs. Brig. Kapil Mohan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN475(Delhi)

Heard the learned counsel for the revenue.2. At the instance of the revenue, following question has been referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 Income Tax Act for opinion of this court :'Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the value of 63,676 shares of Mohan Meakins Breweries Ltd. is not includible in the net wealth of the assessed for the assessment year 1981-82 under the provisions of section 4(1A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?'The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82.3. We had occasion to deal with the similar question in CWT/CIT v. Lt. Col. Kapil Mohan (WT Reference No. 275 of 1983 and IT Reference No. 314 of 1980). In view of the judgment in the said case, we direct that the modalities to be adopted in terms of that judgment will also be applicable to the present case.4. This reference is disposed of accordingly....

Shri Bhag NaraIn Vs. Cc New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Vide stay order No.S/134/2001-NB(DB) dated 20.3.2001 the appellants was directed to make pre-deposit of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) within the period of eight weeks from the date of the order but he has failed to comply with the same by making pre-deposit of the required amount. Therefore, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed under 129-E of the Customs Act....