Delhi Court August 2001 Judgments

international Carpet Corpn Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directo ...

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against Adjudication Order 19/VSI/2001 dated 21-6-2001 whereby a penalty of Rs. 55,000 has been imposed on the appellant firm for contravening the provisions of section 18(2) and 18(3) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to be paid by its partners. In the dispensation application, the appellant have sought waiver of pre deposit of penalty on the ground of strong prima facie case and the balance of the convenience in their favour as well as financial difficulties in pre depositing the amount of penalty as the business of the appellants firm has been badly shattered. 2. Dr. Shamusuddin on behalf of the respondents submitted that the evidence said to be relied upon by the appellant was not adduced in the adjudication proceedings and therefore, the case should be remanded back to the adjudication officer for re-adjudication. 3. In the facts and the circumstances of the case as well as the amount of penalty involved, I do not consider it just and proper to remand the ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cami Advertising and Marketing (P.) Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]254ITR615(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. For the assessment year 1994-95, as against the returned income of Rs. 4,08,950, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 8,72,302. Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and Rs. 2,66,427 was imposed as penalty. The assessed questioned the imposition of penalty on the ground that it had surrendered its income for addition to buy peace and tranquility and there was an understanding not to levy penalty. This plea was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short 'the CIT(A)') on the ground that there was no material to show that there was any conditional surrender of income.3. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-'C' (in short 'the Tribunal'), cancelled the penalty placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills ltd. v. CIT : [1987]168ITR705(SC) . It was held that the assessed...

M/S Maya Export Corporation Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT810; [2002(93)FLR926]

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. By consent of Counsel for the parties the case is taken up for final arguments and disposal. 2. The Petitioner has impugned the Order of Respondent No.1 passed on 21.12.2000 referring the following disputes to adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-III.:- TERMS OF REFERENCE 'Whether the workmen shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to wages w.e.f. 01-12-2000 onwards and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?' 3. It is not controverter by the Respondents that when the labour Officer had visited the site he had read the Lockout Notice issued by the Petitioner. The Respondents were, thereforee, fully aware that it was the Petitioner's case that they were compelled to declare a Lockout because their work-force/labour were resorting to go-slow tactics or stoppage of work intermittently. The Respondents were also aware that because of the nature of the Petitioner's business, i.e. export of merchandise within a definite period, 50% production was insuf...

All India Institute of Medical Science Vs. Ms. Promila Bounthiyal and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT371; 2001(60)DRJ281; [2002(93)FLR812]; (2002)IIILLJ28Del

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. In view of the nature of the suit there is no need for framing of issues as the relief claimed by the plaintiff stems fro the fundamental right of the defendants granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India - the right of freedom of speech and expression.2. Plaintiff has prayed for permanently injuncting the defendants, their members, agents, associates, servants, representatives from interfering in any manner whatsoever to the function of the Institution and ingress and egress of the staff, faculty members, visitors, attendants, doctors and employees, patients in the Institute causing blockade, dharna, gherao, demonstration, slogan shouting, pasting posters, paintings walls and other properties in any manner whatsoever within the premise or outside the premises within the radius of 500 meters of the plaintiff Institution.3. Under Article 19 of the Constitution of India every Union of Association has a right to hold demonstrations in order to ventilate a...

Stracon India Ltd. Vs. Utv Software Communication Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi209; 2002(62)DRJ829

ORDERJ.D. KAPOOR, J.1. Through this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act the petitioner has sought the appointment of the Arbitrator on the basis of the agreement dated 25.3.98. Clause 18 of the said agreement provides as under :-'Any dispute arising out of this Agreement will be subject of Indian Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996.'2. However subsequent to this agreement the parties also entered into other agreement which are dated 5.12.98, 6.2.99 and 12.3.99. The agreement dated 5.12.98 refers to the governance of the relationship of the parties as per the terms of the agreement dated 25.3.98. Clause 5 specifically provides that both the parties shall continue to be the members of the consortium and will actively participate in the consortium as per agreement dated 25.3.98 and will be governed by the provisions of the said agreement.3. However, the respondent while resisting the application relied upon the last agreements dated 5.12.1998 and 6.2.1999 executed bet...

Mandir Market Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Other ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT658

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner Mandir Market Welfare Association (Regd.) has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents for not taking any action of demolition in respect of the shops in possession of the members of the petitioner's Association situated at Doodh Nath Mahadev Mandir, Sector V, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the shops in question of the members association is also sought.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Mr. Sandeep Sethi appearing for respondent No. 4 as well as Mr. Sub-hash Sharma for MCD.3. The case, as set out by the petitioner, is that member of the petitioner's Association have been in occupation of the shops situated in the premises of Doodh Nath Mahadev Mandir Shopping Centre, Sector 5, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, for the last 3 decades nearly. Petitioners claim that they are tenants of r...

Shri Raman Gupta and Another Vs. Director of Enforcement and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT489; 2001(60)DRJ813; 2002(79)ECC160; 2002(139)ELT538(Del)

ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. This writ petition seeks the return of Rs.7.50 lacs seized from the residence of the petitioner No.1 with interest. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Sh. Raman Gupta and Sh. Amerjit Singh Chawla respectively. The respondent Nos. 1-2 are Director of Enforcement, New Delhi. The case of the respondents is that a sum of R. 7.50 lacs which was seized from the residence of the petitioner No. 1 as the sale proceeds of foreign currency which was illegally sold.3. The Memorandum under Section 50 & 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was issued to Shri Girish Chander @ Pincky & Shri Ashok Chopra @ Billa and a copy of the notice was endorsed to petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 has sought the refund of the said amount of Rs. 7.50 lacs seized from hi. The petitioner No. 1's contemporaneous statement was that the amount of Rs. 7.50 lacs has no connection with any illegal foreign exchange transaction but is in fact a loan from one Shri Dinesh Sarna who is an ...

Taneja Skins Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharath Skins Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2002Delhi179; 2002(61)DRJ1

V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. M/s Taneja Skins Co. Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present suit against M/s. Bharath Skins Corporation (for short the defendant) for recovery of Rs. 26,30,000/-.2. The facts alleged are that the defendant has been purchasing from the plaintiff skins and hides of various qualities on credit basis from time to time. The plaintiff had opened an account of the defendant in its books of accounts and the purchases so made by the defendant from the plaintiff were duly and regularly debited to the said account of the defendant. Similarly, the payments received from the defendant from time to time have also been duly and regularly credited to the said account of the defendant maintained by the plaintiff in its books of accounts. The books of accounts are regularly maintained in the ordinary course of business. In this process, the defendant had opened a running account wherein purchases made by the defendant from the plaintiff were duly debited from time to time. Similarly. the pa...

Nugas Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT126; 2002(61)DRJ393

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. The petitioner is Nugas Technologies Pvt. ltd. which retrofits the vehicles with CNG kits. The respondent No.1 is the Union of India. The respondent No.2 is the Indian Institute of Petroleum and respondent No.3 is the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, through its Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Transport Department. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 13.4.2001 which declared invalid the Approval Certificate and Approval dated 15.2.2001 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner further seeks the quashing of letter dated 10.4.2001, issued by respondent No.2 at the behest of respondent No.1, clarifying that the type approval certificate of the petitioner are not valid for conversion of CNG Kits for in use diesel buses manufactured after 31st of March, 1996. The petitioner has submitted that the issues involved in the writ petition are similar to these involved in the judgment of this Court on 31st of July, 2001 in CW4228/01 entitled 'M/s Shrimankar Gas Car Services and Anr...

Cit Vs. Cami Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]119TAXMAN711(Delhi)

This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. For the assessment year 1994-95, as against the returned income of Rs. 4,08,950, assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 8,72,302. Proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and Rs. 2,66,427 was imposed as penalty. The assessed questioned the imposition of penalty on the ground that it had surrendered its income for addition to buy peace and tranquility and there was an understanding not to levy penalty. This plea was not accepted by the assessing officer as well as by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there was no material to show that there was any conditional surrender of income.3. However, the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C', cancelled the penalty placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT : [1987]168ITR705(SC) . It was held that the assessed had made a conditional offer for surrender and, there...