Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Shri Sat Deo JaIn Vs. M/S. Investment Point

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT259; 2001(59)DRJ505

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC against the order dated 14th February, 2000 passed by the court of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner u/s 311 Cr.PC for recalling the complainant for the purposes of further cross-examination.2. Brief facts are that: on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent u/s 138 Cr.PC petitioner was summoned and is facing trial. The respondent in support of its case examined Mr. Sanjay Bansal, its authorised representative in addition to the bank witnesses. Petitioner cross-examined the authorised representative. Thereafter statement of the petitioner was recorded. He also summoned some of the bank officials. As per the defense of the petitioner the cheque in question was issued on the basis of the statement of account given by the complainant/Respondent which is Ex. PW1/B. It is argued that during defense eviden...

Kochhar Construction Works Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT590; 2001(59)DRJ656

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is petition under Sections 14,17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitrator has filed the award dated 22.2.1995 Along with correction slip dated 2.3.1995. Pursuant to the notice for making it is rule of the Court the main contestant respondent No. 1 has filed objections. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the arbitrator is a retired Director General of Works, CPWD and was appointed by the respondent DDA itself. Relevant facts are as follows:The petitioner was awarded the work of construction of 850 SFS houses Sector-B, Pocket-X, Gr-I at Vasant Kunj SH-construction of 90 Cat-III and 90 cat-II SFS houses and 135 S/G Sector-B, PKT-X, Gr-1 Vasant Kunj including internal developments of land and work of sanitary installations.2. Most of the objections are with regard to the claims that have been awarded on the basis of documents and materials produced by the parties. These are claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,13 and 14.3. The criterion laid down by the Suprem...

Mrs. Manjit Kohli Vs. Mrs. Sudha Ramchandani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT629; 2001(63)DRJ123

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance and injunction.2. The defendant along with her husband entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff of the complete first floor of the building S-133., Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi including garage and a servant quarter on the ground floor for a consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- with the proportionate right in the land underneath. The stamp papers for the agreement were purchased on 7th November, 1988. The total consideration money of the sale of the said flat was paid on 8th November, 1988 by as many as four cheques and by way of one FDR of Rs. one lac. This FDR was kept in abeyance out of the consideration money as a security towards the amounts if any payable towards tax and to her charges. Besides the agreements to sell the defendant and her husband executed an indemnity bond in favor of the plaintiff and special power of attorney in favor of one Shri Charan Pal Singh to execute all the relevant papers.3. The poss...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)432A; 93(2001)DLT245A; 2001(59)DRJ640; [2001]252ITR878(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this court on an application made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance could be made out of the interest paid by the assessed on its borrowed capital by reference to the funds advanced by it to its subsidiary company ?' 2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows : The assessed is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Companies Act'). At the relevant point of time it carried on business of manufacture and sale of cement. It had advanced an interest-free loan of Rs. 20,00,000 to its subsidiary, Utkal Investment Ltd., on three dates. The Income-tax Officer, took the view that the assessed-company wa...

Cit Vs. Orissa Cement Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN744(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.Pursuant to the directions given by this court on an application made under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', has referred the following question for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance could be made out of the interest paid by the assessed on its borrowed capital by reference to the funds advanced by it to its subsidiary company?'2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :The assessed is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. At the relevant point of time, it carried on business of manufacture and sale of cement. It has advanced an interest-free loan of Rs. 20 lakhs to its subsidiary Utkal Investment Ltd., on three dates. The Income Tax Officer took the view that the assessed-company was paying interest at a heavy rate on its own borrowings and the funds had been adv...

M/S. Escorts Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC622

1. Appellant filed 4 appeals questioning the correctness of various orders passed by the authorities under the Central Excise Act, 1944.These appeals are E/1574/93-A, E/1621/93-A, E/3180/93-A and E/1668/94-A. All these appeals came up for final hearing on 14.4.98.Since the Tribunal did not have time to take up these matters they were adjourned. Three appeals, namely, E/1574/93-A, E/1668/94-A and E/3180/93-A were adjourned to 16.9.98. The fourth appeal, namely, E/1621/93-A was adjourned to 17.9.98.2. On 16.9.98 when the three appeals, namely E/1574/93-A, E/1668/94-A and E/3180/93-A were taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. This Tribunal heard the Learned Departmental Representative and disposed of those appeals. Tribunal announced dismissal of these appeals on 16.9.98 and reasoned order was to be dictated later.3. When appeal E/1621/93-A was called for final hearing on 17.9.98 appellant was represented before this Tribunal. After hearing both si...

M/S. Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common order dated 27.9.2000 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). Vide which he had disallowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be not" capital goods" to the appellants.2. It has been submitted by both the sides that the question as to whether the disputed goods in question satisfied the definition of 'capital goods' or not for the purposes of modvat credit, requires re-examination in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001(42) RLT 817(LB).3. We have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of both the sides deserves to be accepted. The decision of the Larger Bench in the above referred case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time.4. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in the light of the law laid d...

M/S. K.G. Steel Rolling Mills (P) Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter was called. None appeared for the appellants, M/s. K.G.Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. although a notice for today's hearing was issued on 19.04.2001 and a copy of the notice was also endorsed to the counsel on record.2. Shri Mewa Singh, SDR submits that this matter has come-up before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikky Castings (P) Ltd. & Ors. and the present appeal was one of the group of appeals, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision under the Misc. Order No.M/160-64/2000 NB (DB) dated 11.08.2000. The Tribunal has observed in para-3 of the order that the points referred to the Larger Bench remained covered against the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Venus Castings Ltd. - 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC). The reference was returned by the Division Bench for passing appropriate orders in individual appeals in accordance with the judgement of the Supreme Court.3. As the matter is covered...

M/S. Manu Tiling Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Jaipur - I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the adjudicating authority was rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act without looking into the merits of the case.3. Ld. Advocate Shri Bipin Gary, reiterating the grounds of the present appeal, submits that the appellants had duly complied with the "interim stay order" of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing them to deposit a total amount of Rs. 6,806.00 towards duty and penalty and granting waiver of stay in respect of the remainder, that the factum of such deposit made on 28.09.2000 was duly intimated to the Range Superintendent of Central Excise although the same could not be intimated directly to the Commissioner (Appeals), and that without any notice of hearing ld. Commissioner (Appeals) took up the appeal for final disposal in violation of the principles of natural justice and passed th...

M/S. Virdi Brothers and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT86TriDel

1. The order of adjudication challenged in these happened to be passed pursuant too show cause notice dated 3/6-12-1999 issued by the same officer to twelve noticees. As per the show cause notice, a sum of Rs. 63,65,580.00 was demanded by way of duty. While adjudicating on the said show cause notice, the Commissioner confirmed duty to the extent of Rs. 58,25,580.00 form noticee No.1. A like amount has been levied by way of penalty on it invoking the provisions contained in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).First noticee was also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Further, it was also directed to pay interest on the amounts directed to be paid it invoking the provisions contained in Section 11AB of the Act. Order of adjudication further confiscated the refrigeration plants belonging to noticees No. 2 to 12 with option to redeem to same on payment of d...