Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Hem Raj Vijay Kumar and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)78ITD304(Delhi)

1. The Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to constitute this Special Bench for the disposal of the caplioned appeals filed by the asscssce against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut (CIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 8-3-1991 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. In the appeal petitions, the asscssee has taken as many as 11/10 identically worded grounds which challenge assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and the validity of the order passed by him under the said section, to set aside the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act.3.2 On 31-3-1986, a "Memorandum of Association" was drawn by 26 parties joining as an Association of persons to exploit the business for retail sale of country liquor in the financial year 1986-87 at shops 1 to 3 situated in Hapur City, Shop No. 4 situated at Pilakhuwa and Shop No....

Ex-gnr, Birbal Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)425; 92(2001)DLT183; 2001(59)DRJ242

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Doubting correctness of view expressed in Ex-Sepoy S.D.P. Yadav v. Union of India & Others C.W.P. No. 4156 of 1995 decided on 22nd August 1997 by a Division Bench reference has been made by the Division Bench to the Larger Bench. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 7th March 1991 and 1st August 1997 of the respondents, by which he was refused pension under Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). Refusal was on the ground that petitioner had not rendered the requisite period of qualifying service. Period of desertion was not reckoned to be a part of qualifying service. When the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision of the Division Bench in S.D.P. Yadav's case (supra). Learned Single Judge felt that the judgment requir...

Food Corporation of India Vs. M/S. Howe (India) Private Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)50; 92(2001)DLT167; 2002(63)DRJ326; 2002(1)RAJ444

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has arisen against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.2.1985 by which appellant's objections (IA.4687/84) to the award of the arbitrators were dismissed and the award was made rule of court with slight modification.2. On 10.11.1972 an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent under which the respondent was appointed to render consulting engineering services in respect of construction of grain storage facilities (Silos) at ten different sites projected by the appellant. On disputes having arisen between the parties regarding remuneration due to the respondent under the agreement, in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the respondent appointed Mr.Justice B.N.Lokur (Retired) as an Arbitrator. The appellant failed to appoint arbitrator within the statutory period despite notice. As such Mr.Justice B.N.Lokur (Retired) entered upon reference as the sole arbitrator. The appellant approached this C...

Shri Madan Lal Vs. Smt. Sneh Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)35; AIR2001Delhi433; 92(2001)DLT307

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The defendant has filed this appeal against the order passed on 28.11.2000 by learned Single Judge disposing of two applications (IAS.No.10254/98 and 874/99) filed by the plaintiff respondent. By the impugned order the plaintiff/respondent has been appointed as a receiver of the suit property and has been permitted to transact her business from the premises. Thus I.A.874/99 filed under Order XLI Rule 1 stood allowed and I.A.10254/98 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was dismissed as infructuous.2. On 10.11.1998 suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant seeking decree for declaration that she was the owner of the shop having bought the same from the defendant on the basis of documents executed on 9.7.1997 for valuable consideration and, that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the shop or the goods lying therein. Decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with ...

Shri Ghan Shyam Dass Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ414

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is an application under Section 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act seeking direction to the arbitrator to file the award and the proceedings in the Court and make the same as a rule of the Court. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent has filed the award which has been registered as Suit.2. Perusal of the award shows that the claims of the petitioner were rejected except claim towards refund of security/earnest money amounting to Rs.10,000/- though according to the respondent the total security/earnest money was only Rs.8,264/-. The respondent also filed counter-claim for the amount of Rs.44,869/- besides Rs.4,859/- towards cost of cement bags.3. It is a non-speaking award. The main objection is with regard to the claim of the security amount which has been awarded. In reply before the Arbitrator, the respondent admitted that the amount of Rs.6,000/- was earnest money and Rs.2264/- was deducted as security from CCI and Rs.2551/- towards security was ret...

Olga Kozireva Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3701; 2002(63)DRJ183; 2002(80)ECC451

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. By this petition styled to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') legality and validity of the order dated 19th September 2000 passed by the Union of India-Respondent No. 1 through its Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, has been challenged. Said order of Mittimus was passed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the 'Act') for detaining the petitioner with a view to preventing the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') from smuggling goods in future. Prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.2. Grounds on which detention has been directed and background thereof are as follows:On 28th August 2000 detenu, a holder of Uzbek passport, arrived at the IGI Airport from Bishkek by flight No. K2-545. She was intercepted at the exit gate of arriv...

C.J. International Hotels Ltd. and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ562

ORDERS.K. Mahajan. J.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of a five stat hotel being run under the name and style of Hotel Le Meridian. The hotel is constructed on a plot of land bearing No. 8. Windsor Place, New Delhi. The land on which the hotel is constructed was taken from the defendant-NDMC on license basis for which is license agreement dated 16th April, 1981 was executed between the NDMC and M/S Pure Drinks New Delhi Limited. This agreement was substituted by another license agreement dated 14th July, 1982 between the plaintiff No.1 and the NDMC. The parties are governed by the license agreement dated 14 the July, 1982. Though it is the stand of the plaintiff in the suit that this agreement has been modified by few subsequent agreement, however, according to the defendant-NDMC, the parties continued to be governed by the agreement only an indulgence was shown to the plaintiffs to make payment of the license fee in Installments.2. In or about 1989, a sum of more than Rs. 6 crores had ...

Hem Raj Vijay Kumar and Co. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Del)648

ORDERKrishan Swarup, A.M.The Honble President of the Tribunal has been pleased to constitute this Special Bench for the disposal of the captioned appeals filed by the assessed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut (Commissioner) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 8-3-1991, for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. In the appeal petitions, the assessed has taken as many as 11/10 identically worded grounds which challenge assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, and the validity of the order passed by him under the said section, to set aside the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act.3. Facts of the case are briefly set out in the succeeding paragraphs.3.2. On 31-3-1986, a 'Memorandum of Association' was drawn by 26 parties joining as an Association of Persons (hereinafter referred to as the AOP) to exploit the business for retail sale of co...

M/S. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. the impugned order in original has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The case was fixed for personal hearing before him on 18.4.2000 and 23.5.2000 but on both these dates on one appeared for the noticee.The show cause notice in this case had been issued in 1994. Therefore, the adjudicating authority observed that reasonable opportunity had already been given to the assessee to present their defence and thus the principles of natural justice have been complied with.2. Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the unit of the appellants is closed for quite some time back and there was nobody to receive the letters at Kota. The correspondence is being made with their Head Office at Kanpur and as there was no one to receive the letters, the non presence of their was not wilful. He further mentions that the appellants were very much interested in properly putting their defence and to ex...

M/S. Worthington Pump India Vs. Cce, Meerut

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT629TriDel

1. In the impugned order, the Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 47,182.80 under Rule 9 (2) read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersible pump sets and electrical motors and parts thereof. They were availing exemption under Notf. No.67/86 dt. 10.2.86 on parts of electric motors used captively in the submersible pump sets. This notification was rescind by Notf. No.129/88 dt. 1.3.86. However, the concession was again introduced by Notf. No. 142/88 dt. 18.4.88. The appellants however availed the benefit of Notf. No. 67/86 during the period 1.3.88 to 17.4.88 when the concession was withdrawn. Accordingly a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the duty should not be demanded from them during the period 1.3.88 to 17.4.88. SCN was issued on 21.12.89.3. In reply to the SCN, the appellants sub...