Delhi Court July 2001 Judgments

Tirath Prakash (Deceased) Through His Widow Smt. Mithlesh Sharma Vs. S ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4028; 2001(59)DRJ619

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.1. In a charge-sheet filed about two and a half decades ago, the appellant Tirth Prakash (since deceased) was convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the Act and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he has been sentenced to undergo six months RI. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently and the sentence in default of payment of fine is to run consecutively. The appeal is directed against this order.2. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant expired on 23 May 1993 and on his widow moving an application under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) vide order dated 19 November 1997, leave was...

Diwakar and ors. Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4614; 94(2001)DLT526; 2002(61)DRJ150

Held :It has to be noted that Section 326 itself observes that if the successor is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses, whose evidence has already been recorded, is necessary in the interests of justice, he may re--summon any such witness for further examination or cross--examination or re--examination, as the case may be.Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. This application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) is for transfer of the case relating to FIR No. 179/97, u/s 302/34 IPC, presently pending trial before Shri D.C.Anand, Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma courts, Delhi, to the court of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, presently presiding Judge, MACT, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The main ground on which such a prayer has been made is that prosecution as well as defense evidence has been closed and statement of the accused has been recorded in terms of Section 313 of the code and, thereforee, trial is practically over. Since the evidence has ...

Shri Vikas Makhija, Trading as M/S. Swarn Enterprises Vs. M/S. the Ben ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT817

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Along with Suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff and from passing of the goods by the defendant as that of the plaintiff, present application is filed for ad-interim injunction. The trade mark in question is 'TIGER (label)' which the plaintiff claims to be using for goods like deodarant, Phenyle, black cleanser, etc. It is a registered trade mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short). The particulars of registration are as under:-T.M.No. Dated Class J.No. Trade Mark408367 23-07-83 5 1067 (S) TIGER BRAND(label)531814 20-06-90 5 1153 TIGER2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has been using this label for marketing his product since the year 1966. The colour scheme, general get up, lay out, entire collection of words, writing style of plaintiff's product is unique and artistic. The said work is quite distinctive and ...

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Chameli Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Del)654; [2002]253ITR156(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the deceased-assessed transferred her right to get the lease of the plot from the Delhi Development Authority, was she entitled to get the deduction of 50 per cent. unearned increase in terms and conditions of the auction ?'2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :A return of taxable gift was filed by the assessed. The Assessing Officer found that the assessed had taken part in the public auction held by the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'the DDA'), in April, 1974, and purchased a plot in Safdarjang Area at a cost of Rs. 23,510. The plot was transferred in the name ...

Emmanneul Uchenna Ezenwosu Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002(142)ELT564(Del)

ORDERR.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the 'Code' only) challenges appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act (hereafter referred to as the 'Act' only). The appellant stands convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide orders dated 18-12-1996 and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh vide orders dated 20th December, 1996. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo further RI for one year.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the Trial Court records.3. The prosecution allegations against the appellant, briefly stated, are that on 25-11-1993 H.M. Customs and Excise, U.K. seized 1.5 kg. heroin at Cargo Customs Station, Heathrow Airport, London which was concealed in a parcel booked from India under shipping/airway Bill ...

Cgt Vs. Smt. Chameli Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN222(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.At the instance of the revenue following question has been referred under section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (the Act) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench C, New Delhi for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the deceased-assessed transferred her right to get the lease of the plot from the DDA, was she entitled to get the deduction of 50 per cent unearned increase in terms and conditions of the auction?'Dispute relates to the assessment year 1975-76.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows :A return of taxable gift was filed by the assessed. The assessing officer found that the assessed had taken part in the public auction held by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in April 1974 and purchased a plot in Safdarjung area at a cost of Rs. 23,510. The plot was transferred in the name of the deceases grandson Sh. Rajiv Jhalani in 1975. The assesses case was that the plot was transferred to two grandsons, viz., Sh. Ra...

Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. S.M.A. Siddique

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

D.P. Sharma, Chairperson.This revision petition is directed against the order No. SDE(RS) IV/76-77/84 dated 8-10-1984 whereby the charges against the two respondents were dropped and directed to be filed for the reason that one Mohd. Thamby could not be produced by the petitioner for cross-examination. It is noted that vide their orders in Appeal No. 121 of 1972 dated 16-9-1978 and Appeal No. 135 of 1972 dated 28-11-1978 the then Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board remanded these two cases for readjudication for the reason that the cross-examination of Mohd. Thamby, the co-accused, was considered to be essential and Mohd. Thamby was not made available to the respondents for that purpose. These two cases were not referred back for adjudication accordingly. In the readjudication proceedings, the said Mohd. Thamby was again not produced by the department for cross-examination. The said Mohd. Thamby is stated to have been disappeared. In view of this the learned adjudicating author...

M/S. Arcee Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Shri R.L. Lamba, Advocate appearing for M/s. Arcee Industry submits that even before the show cause notice was issued, the appellants have voluntarily deposited a duty of Rs. 1,45,000/- and refers to para 6 of the show cause notice. The Commissioner had agreed that the rate of duty had been wrongly calculated at 20% ad valoram while the correct rate was to be 15% ad valoram and after following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. vs. CCE, Madra, he directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise to recalculate the duty demand and give particulars to the appellants to file refund claim for the excess amount of duty paid by them. He submits that no recalculation has been intimated to the appellants but on their own they have calculated the demand. He submits that as the excess duty is already with the Department, the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs be waived.2. We have heard Shri Ashok Kumar, JDR and have gone through the facts on record. ...

M/S Choksi Contacts (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is what is the value of raw material that is to be added by a job worker to arrive at the assessable value of goods. According to the appellants, it is the cost of raw material contained in the finished goods, while according to the department, the cost of raw material utilised on the manufacture of finished goods is to be added. The demand for short levy of Rs. 3,07,015/- for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98 was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner who also ordered recovery of interest in terms of Section 11AB and imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Cental Excise Act., equal to the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating authority; hence this appeal.2. Heard Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Adv. and Shri P.K. Jain Ld. SDR. The cost of raw material contained in the finished goods is to be added to arrive at the assessable value of the final product, namely, Electrical Contacts and other articles made of Precious ...

Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Gujrat Ambhuja Cement

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.2.2000 vide which he had reversed the order in original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 5.2.98 disallowing modvat credit of Rs. 1494370.91 on the goods in question as "capital goods" to the respondents.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. On the last date of hearing i.e. 23.5.2001 the matter was adjourned on the request of the learned counsel, but today none has come present. There is also no request for adjournment from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter after hearing the learned SDR.3. It has been submitted by both the sides that the issue as to whether the goods falls within the ambit of definition of "capital goods" in terms of Rule the Central Excise Rules read with Explanation I appended thereto, deserves to be re-examined in the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001(42) R...