Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Ms. Anu Gill Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)411; 92(2001)DLT179; II(2001)DMC690; 2001(59)DRJ467

ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J 1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 140/99 u/s 498A/406 IPC PS Patel Nagar qua the petitioner; the married sister-in-law 'Nanad' of the complainant (Respondent no. 2).Admit.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 who is appearing is person.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: on 16.1.1994 (Respondent No. 2- complainant) was married to Major Sanjeev Kaloti who was serving in the Indian Army; the marriage was solemnised in Delhi; she lived with her husband at the places of his postings, firstly at Kanput and at Dibrugarh, Assam. The petitioner, at the time of marriage of her brother Sanjeev was working as an assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Delhi was allotted Government accommodation. On 16.11.1997 the petitioner was married and she is living in her matrimonial home at Noida. On 9th June, 1998 respondent no. 2 sent a detailed complai...

Maj. Kapil Mohan L/R of Shri N.N. Mohan Vs. the Controller of Estate D ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(59)DRJ599

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In these two cross references under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953(in short the 'Act') the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D'(in short the 'Tribunal') has referred the following questions for opinion of this Court:At the instance of the Accountable person'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was correct in not accepting the plea of the Accountable Person for deducting alleged liability towards the marriage and maintenance expenses of the grand-daughters of the deceased? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the aggregation in the principal value of the Estate, of the interest in the joint family property, of all the lineal descendants of the deceased, for the purpose of determining the rate of Estate Duty was legally correct? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Estate Duty payable on the valu...

Dr. Narayan Waman Nerurkar Vs. State (Through C.B.i.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002CriLJ826; 2001(59)DRJ447

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Dr. Narayan Waman Nerurkar was advisor in the Department of Electronics, Government of India. On 17th April, 1987 a criminal case was registered by the Special Investigation Cell, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) under Section 12B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 & 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The said case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Regional Manager of a courier company, M/s Trident Express. As per the complaint on 4th April, 1987 a letter addressed to one Mr. Marc De Saint Denis, M/s Coprint Paris was received by the said courier company for dispatch. Another letter addressed to Mr.J.W.H. Weavers, Netherlands was received on 13th April, 1987. These letters were picked up by the couriers from M/s William Jacks and the particulars of the sender were given on the Airway Bills. The courier company got suspicious and opened the letter and inside the covers addressed to the person in Paris was xerox copy o...

Mr. Om Parkash and ors. Vs. the Director, Aiims and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT232; 2001(60)DRJ717

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The question that arises in these petitions is whether the personnel engaged by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS) from time to time in sundry 'projects' undertaken by it are entitled to regular employment with it.These persons have worked for periods varying from one year to over fifteen years. In respect of some of them who were engaged as `Researchers' for periods of over twelve years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Dr. V.L. Chandra vs . All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Others, : (1990)IILLJ28SC ensured their regularisation despite the argument of the AIIMS that they had been appointed only to projects and were not entitled to continue in service after the competition of the project. To appreciate the views of the Apex Court, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:'The Institute set up by statute is intended to carry on research in a continuous way to improve the level of medical knowledge. Under...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax/income-tax Vs. Kapil Mohan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)240; [2001]251ITR386(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All these cases involve questions relating to inclusion of income of spouse and minor child, etc., in the income of the individual concerned under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), as well as the scope for inclusion of certain assets in the net wealth of an individual under Section 4 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the WT Act'). The assessed being the same, these issues are taken up together as they are closely interlinked. This judgment shall govern the references made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), under Section 256(1) of the Act and Section 27(1), Wealth-tax Act.2. The factual position needs to be noted in brief.3. The assessed, his wife and minor daughter along with the assessed's brothers, their respective spouses and children constituted a Hindu undivided family (in short 'the HUF') known as M. M. Mohan and Sons. On December 22, 1970, the assessed threw his separate properties c...

Major Kapil Mohan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)182

D.K. Jain, J.In these two cross references under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following questions for opinion of this court :At the instance of the accountable person'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in not accepting the plea of the accountable person for deducting alleged liability towards the marriage and maintenance expenses of the granddaughters of the deceased ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the aggregation in the principal value of the estate, of the interest in the joint family property, of all the lineal descendants of the deceased, for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty was legally correct ?3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that estate duty payable on the value o...

B.H.E.L Vs. Cce Bhopal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. All these stay applications have been filed in appeals involving modvat issues. These applications pray for wavier of pre-deposit of duty and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeals.2. As regards the first prayer, these applications must wait for the decision of the Larger Bench on the issue (touching the maintainability of appeals of this kind) referred form the case of Kissan Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd. As regards the second prayer [fir stay of recovery of duty], there will be an Interim stay of such recovery till final disposal of these applications, in the interest of justice. These applications are adjourned, for considering the first prayer [for waiver of pre-deposit of duty], to 29.8.2001....

M/S. Nahar Fibres Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue in these two appeals is the same, therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.2.The issue involved in the case is whether duty is to be collected at the stage of removal of the yarn from the factory.3. The facts of the cases are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of single yarn, multi-folded yarn and doubled yarn. On scrutiny of the records of the assessees, the Departmental Authorities found that the appellants were manufacturing single yarn and were further processing the single yarn into doubled/multi-folded yarn. The Department, therefore alleged that since only doubled/multi-folded yarn was leared from factory, therefore, duty should have been paid on the price at which the Yarn left the factory since duty on the Yarn was advalorem. The assessees were not selling the yarn at the factorygate but were sending it to their depots on consignment basis without paying duty as their contention was that duty, was alread...

M/S. Majestic Auto Ltd. Vs. Cce, Meerut-1

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an application, filed by M/s. Majestic Auto Ltd., for rectification of mistake said to have crept in the Appellate Tribunal's Final Order No. 1498/2000-B dated 26.9.2000.2. Shri S.V.Arya, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants have taken the plea, amongst others, that the Additional Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate the matter in terms of the powers invested by the C.B.E.C. under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act; that they had relied upon fooling three circulars of the Board whereby the criteria for adjudication by officers of different ranks was notifies: 2.2 The learned Advocate, further, submitted that as per Circular dated 9.12.97, different cases of the same notice involving the same issue in a Commissionerate will be adjudicated by an officer competent to decide the case where duty involved is of the highest amount; that they had pleaded in their memorandum of Appeal that because same issue involving duty Rs.29.47 lakhs was pending adjudication...

M/S. Cold Breeze Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Vadodara

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC402

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s.Cold Breeze Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is whether they removed Air Conditioners from their factory premises in the guise of kits/components and suppressed the value for claiming the benefit or exemption under Notification No.64/83-CE dated 1.3.1983.2. Shri Himanshu Desai, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants manufacture and supply air conditioners, water coolers and parts thereof; that they also provide service for installing, maintaining or renting air-conditioners, water coolers; that they surrendered their L-4 licence ad the activity of manufacturing water coolers was discontinued during 1983-84, that after having crossed the prescribed limit,they obtained L-4 licence again on 5.9.1986 for manufacture of air-conditioner and split unit, water cooler and cooler-cum-filter;that Central Excise Officers visited their premises on 26.8-1986 and subsequently visited the premises of various customers and issued show cause notice date...