Delhi Court February 2002 Judgments

Metropolis Restaurant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)891; 97(2002)DLT249; 2002(62)DRJ246

J.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral)1. Admittedly defendant No. 3 is a tenant of the plaintiff firm in respect of the property No.14 and 14/1 plot No. 15, Block 80A Krishna Market Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The suit property is situated at 1634-35 Main Bazar Pahar Ganj, New Delhi of which the plaintiff is owner. Some time in 1991, the plaintiff firm and its partners had filed eviction petition against defendant No. 3 on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(I)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.2. As a counter blast, defendant No. 3 i.e. the tenant made a complaint to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the plaintiff-firm that it has raised huge unauthorised constructions in the suit property. On persistent representation of defendant No. 3 the DDA prosecuted sh. Nand Lal Sharma one of the partners of the plaintiff under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act. However, the said criminal proceeding ended in acquittal on the ground that the property in question...

Neha JaIn Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)75; AIR2002Delhi403; 97(2002)DLT239

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this writ petition seeks quashing of the decision of the respondent University of Delhi, cancelling her examinations of B.A. (Pass), 1st Year, for the year April-May, 2001 and de-barring her from appearing at any examination of the University for a period of 12 months. Petitioner also seeks declaration of the results of all the four papers in which she had appeared. Further, petitioner seeks a reasonable opportunity, as sought in the representation dated 6.10.2001 to explain her case.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present case may be briefly noted:-(i) Petitioner, a student of Satyawati Co-Educational College, Day Classes, was enrolled in B.A. (Pass) Part-I course. She appeared for B.A. (Pass) first year examination held in April-May, 2001. She had taken the examination in English, Hindi, Political Science and Sanskrit on 30.4.2001, 2.5.2001, 4.5.2001 and 8.5.2001 respectively. (ii) Petitioner during the examination of the Political Scienc...

Mr. Anil Kumar Bindal Vs. the Director General of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)743; 2002(62)DRJ331

Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. By this order we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1306/02 & 1194/02 filed by Anil Kumar Bindal and his wife, Sanita Bindal.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the income tax search on 21.11.2002 under Section 132 of the Income tax Act at the premises of the petitioners, Flat No.1, Ground Floor, B-2, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. During the search two keys of the locker No. 290 of Corporation Bank, Vivek Vihar, Delhi and locker No. 895 of Central Bank of India, Savita Vihar, Delhi were taken in possession by the income tax department. On 6.2.2002, the petitioners received notices under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act directing the petitioners to get the block assessment for the period 1.4.1990 to 21.11.2002.3. The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed not to proceed in any manner against the petitioners in pursuance to the illegal searches and declare the searches as illegal. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondent's directi...

Anil Kumar Bindal Vs. Director General of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)376

Dalveer Bhandari, J.By this order we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1306/02 & 1194/02 filed by Anil Kumar Bindal and his wife Sanita Bindal.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the income-tax search on 21-11-2000 under section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the premises of the petitioners. Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, B-2, Vivek Vitiar, Delhi. During the search two keys of the locker No. 290 of Corporation Bank, Vivek Vitiar, Delhi, and locker No. 895 of Central bank of India, Savita Vihar, Delhi, were taken in possession by the Income Tax Department. On 6-2-2002, the petitioners received notices under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act directing the petitioners to get the block assessment for the period 1-4-1990, to 21-11-2000.The petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed not to proceed in any manner against the petitioners in pursuance to the illegal searches and declare the searches as illegal. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents' directio...

Future Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi (icd)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT98TriDel

1. This appeal arises from and is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.HKS(335)/ICD/2001, dated 25-4-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. Under the impugned order, Commissioner confirmed A.O No. 13/98, dated 30-4-98/4-5-98 passed by the Dy.Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj, New Delhi.2. The dispute which arose for decision was the classification of 500 sets of Car alarm and locking system imported by the appellants. The appellant claimed classification under Customs Tariff Heading 8301.20.This claim was rejected by the authorities and they held that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 8531.10. The change of classification had effect on import policy also. If the classification claimed by the appellant was correct, the goods could be freely imported. Otherwise, they were restricted for import, and the appellant did not have the lice-rise to import the goods. Consequently., on account of the change in classification, the goods were held t...

Harnam Steel and Allied Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC221

1. By Order dated 6.12.2001, the appellants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. A certified copy of the order was issued in the correct address of the party as furnished in their memorandum of appeal and a copy thereof was issued to their Advocate. However, when the matter came up before the Bench on 4.2.2002 for report of compliance with the direction for deposit, there was no representation for the party, nor any proof, on record, of deposit. The matter was adjourned to this day for report of compliance. In the Bench Order dated 4.2.2002, it was warned that the appeal would be dismissed without any further notice in the event of non-compliance with the direction for deposit. Today, again, there is neither any proof, on record, of deposit nor any representation for the appellants in spite of notice of the Order dated 6.12.2001 and 4.2.2002 having been duly issue...

Spectrum Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT687TriDel

1. Appellant M/s. Spectrum Paints Pvt. Ltd., Shahjahanpur is engaged in the manufacture of Textment Surface Coating Paints and Primers.Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 403(KDT) C.E./JPR-I(214)/2001, dated 21-6-2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant herein. The adjudicating authority by an order dated 27-10-99 had confirmed the demand against the appellant to the extent of Rs. 1,84,915/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest on the demand under Section 11AA and penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q on the ground of evasion of duty by non-inclusion of handling charges in the assessable value. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority.2. The main contention raised in this appeal by the assessee is that the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Authority have entered a finding against the appellant which is beyond the scope of...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Starwire India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT373TriDel

1. These supplementary appeals were ordered to be dismissed as time-barred by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/1063-1070/2001 (NB-S), dated 6-8-2001.2. The main appeal of the appellants/Revenue also stands dismissed on merits even. These supplementary appeals sought to be admitted after condoning the delay though relates to the different period, but the main issue is the same. Since the main appeal stands dismissed and similar CODs were also dismissed by the Tribunal, the present CODs are also not legally maintainable and ordered to be dismissed.3. Similarly, the ROAs of the Revenue seeking restoration of the appeals which were dismissed as time-barred, are also not legally maintainable and the same are ordered to be dismissed....

Hcl Infosystems Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1996-97.2. Since they involve a common issue, they are consolidated, heard together and disposed of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.3. The assessee formerly known as HCL Ltd./HCL-Hewlett Packard Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 17th April, 1986, under the name and style 'HCL Limited' (HCLL for short). It took over the existing and running businesses of various companies which were amalgamated with the . assessee under the scheme of amalgamation formulated and approved by the respective High Courts of Judicature.4. The assessee and Hewlett-Packard Company, USA (HP for short), entered into agreement dt. 10th July, 1992, by which the Licensing and Technical Assistance Agreement (LTAA for short), dt. 16th April, 1990, between HP and HPI was novated in favour of the assessee and all rights and obligations of HPI were transferred to the a...

Mohit Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)210

S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal' in short) is the writ petitioner. He filed an application before the Tribunal for a direction upon the respondents that he be allotted in the Indian Police Service and be sent for training or in the alternative, be allotted in any other service according to rank with effect from the due date with all consequential benefits, pay and allowances and continuity of qualifying service etc.2. The petitioner belongs to Other Backward Community. In the Civil Services Examination, 1999, he was assigned rank No. 352. His preference for allotment to various services was:1. IAS 8. IAAS 2. IPS 9. IDAS 3. IFS 10. IOFS 4. IC & CES 11.I.POSTAL SERVICE 5. IRS 12 ICAS 6. CBI 13. Case 7. IIS 3. A note was appended to the Rule 2 of Examination Rules which reads thus:'2. A candidate shall be required to indicate in his/her application form for the Main Examination his/her order of pr...