Delhi Court December 2002 Judgments

Regional Manager, Upsrtc Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT584TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed by the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Faizabad for setting aside of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed through the Order-in-Originai dated 19-9-97 by the Commissioner in respect of Bus No. UP-42A/8557.2. The above said bus had been ordered to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, as the same was found carrying computer parts of Japanese and Singaporian origin valued at Rs. 9,46,000/- which too had been confiscated absolutely under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. These facts are evident from the bare perusal of the impugned Order-in-Original. The Commissioner, through this order, also imposed penalty on various persons as detailed therein, of different amounts who were found involved in smuggling and transportation of those goods.While ordering confiscation of the bus, the learned Commissioner has given option to the owner to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is this fine which has been sought to be quash...

Kanta Devi JaIn Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC104

1. Heard Counsel for the appellant. This is only an application for amendment of the relief column in the appeal, which is incomplete. The amendment proposed is only formal, and, therefore, this application is allowed. Let the amendment as proposed be carried out in the Memorandum of Appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant today itself. This application is disposed of accordingly.2. The appellant raised an objection before the Recovery Officer (DRT-II, Delhi) that the property in question should not be attached and sold in execution of the Recovery Certificate inasmuch as it was only residential property and, therefore, exempt under Section 60 of the C.P.C. This objection was rejected by the Recovery Officer on the ground that the property is a mortgaged property. Therefore, the question of its being exempted from attachment and sale by virtue of Section 60 did not arise. Therefore, he rejected the objection. The appellant went on appeal to the DRT-II, Delhi wherein the appell...

Acit, Inv. Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue the challenge is to the order of the CIT(A) dated 3rd January, 1998 on the ground that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the bank interest and the claim received by the assessee should have been included under the head "profit and gains of business of profession" while calculating deduction u/s 80-HHC of the IT Act.2. The brief background of the present litigations is that the assessee filed its return of income declaring its total income which included from the following heads :-(i) Bank interest - Rs. 1,69,845/-(ii) Claims Received - Rs. 1,81,971/-(iii) Miscellaneous Income - Rs. 2,700/-(iv) Interest Received - Rs. 14,907/- -------------- 3. Out of the aforesaid items, the AO and the CIT(A) held the amount of Rs 2, 700/- and Rs. 14, 907/- to be not the business income of the assessee as according to the authorities below, there was no nexus between the receipts and the business of the assessee. The assessee has accepted the findings of the a...

Jagdish Kumar, S/O Ghanshyam Das Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, T ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT546; 2003(66)DRJ535; 2003(1)SLJ185(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the respondent to give the petitioner assumed seniority w.e.f. 3.7.19898, i.e. the date from which the juniors of the petitioner were promoted and were given promotion. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was eligible for promotion on 3rd July, 1989 and that promotion was not given to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a vigilance case. No charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner at that time Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondent was totally contrary to the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman : (1991)IILLJ570SC . It is the admitted case of the parties that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 18th September, 1989 for a misconduct relating to January, 1988, no inquiry officer thereafter was appointed and the proceedings were closed on the basis of a single hearing in December, ...

Asheesh Saini Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ341

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has been pursuing the course of 'Fashion Communication' at the National Institute of Fashion Technology/respondent No.2 herein. Petitioner had cleared the first two semesters. Petitioner while appearing in the third semester was declared unsuccessful in the subject of Graphic Design. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to conduct re-examination in the subject of 'Graphic Design'. A direction is further sought that petitioner be evaluated or as sassed by an independent faculty, which would not be under the influence of respondents 2 and 3. Further directions are sought for introducing courses such as Specialization in Written Communication etc. The petitioner had also sought award of damages for mental agony, harassment etc.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief for introduction of the course 'Specia...

Mr. Sanjeev SarIn and anr. Vs. Smt. Rita Wadhwa and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR397(Delhi)

Khan, J.1. Petitioners are the real brothers of R-1. They are involved in a dispute regarding division of the estate left by their mother one Madhu Rekha Sarin. They first sought the intervention of some family elders to resolve it but failed. Meanwhile, they are said to have executed an agreement on 28.9.1999 for referring their disputes to the arbitration of two relatives which, though referred, could not be taken to the logical end.2. Petitioners thereafter filed AA 662/99 for appointment of a retired Judge as an arbitrator on the basis of one document dated 28.9.1999, claimed by them to be the arbitration agreement. Their sister (R-1) contested this and disputed that this document did not amount to an arbitration agreement. The designated authority (Ld.Single Judge) on this passed order dated 20.10.2000 framing some issues in the matter on taking the view that existence of arbitration agreement was disputed.3. Petitioners filed a review petition (RA 44/2000) against this on the ple...

Mokha Light House Vs. the Central Pollution Control Board and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR349(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT660

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 16(3) read with Section 41 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act'), praying that the award remitted under Section 16(1) by this Court vide order dated 20.12.1994,has become void on failure of the Arbitration Tribunal to submit the decision within the reasonable time.2. Facts in brief are: that petitioner is a partnership firm; respondents 1 & 2 awarded the work of construction of Central Boards' Building Complex at Shahdara Delhi Sub Head Electrical Installation and entered into a contract agreement No. EE/BP/87-88/2 dated 31.8.1987. The tendered amount was Rs. 22,28,075/- and the estimated cost put to tender was Rs. 20,28,921/-. The subject works contract was governed by the General conditions of the Contract providing for settlement of all disputes and claims by way of Arbitration under Clause 38 thereof. The stipulated date of start of work was 10.3.1987 and the date of completion was 9.9.1988. It is alleged tha...

R.S. Jindal, S/O Late Shri R.D. Jindal, (Ex. Chief Engineer, Dda) Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 102(2003)DLT554; 2003(1)SLJ188(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Writ petition has been filed for appropriate directions directing the respondent/DDA to determine and pay petitioner's entitlement of pension and other retiral benefits as per pension rules. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service as Chief Engineer of DDA on 23rd December, 1985. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 168/86 before Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 15th December, 1986.2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed an SLP in the Supreme Court and the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:'Special leave granted. Preparation of record dispensed with. Appeal will be heard on present papers with such additional papers as parties may file within six weeks from today.There will be stay on the condition that the respondent is paid his full salary and allowances pending disposal of the...

M.C.D. and anr. Vs. Sh. Jasbir Singh, Prop. Jaseb Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR336(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT682

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. With the introduction of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a sea change has occurred in the matter of challenging the Award. This Act has shrunken the grounds and limited the scope for challenging the Award to such an extent that recourse to a Court against an Award is open only in following eventualities:-(i) If the party challenging the Award furnishes proof that he was under some incapacity; (ii) That the agreement was not valid under the law; (iii) That he was not given a proper notice of the appointment of an Arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; (iv) That the Award deals with a dispute not referred to or not falling within the terms of the agreement; (v) If the Award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submissions to arbitration, only when if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted and in that case only that part of t...

RitspIn Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT453TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 11/15-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original dated 17-11-99 of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing the Modvat credit on the capital goods in question, to the appellants.2. The appellants had been disallowed the Modvat credit on the capital goods on the ground of having failed to file proper declaration under Rule 57T of the Rules. They had been disallowed the Modvat credit of various amounts as detailed in the Order-in-original and appeal memos of the above captioned appeals. Penalty had also been imposed on them, as detailed therein.3. So far as the receipt of the capital goods and their installation in the factory premises of the appellants is concerned, the same remains undisputed. It also remain undisputed that the goods in respect of which the Modvat credit had been claimed fall within the definition of 'capital goods' in terms of Rule 57Q of the Ru...