Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments

Indian Refrigeration Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT659TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Indian Refrigeration Industries for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. 403, 2002-B, dated 20-9-2002.2. Shri C. Hari Shankar learned Advocate submitted that the Applicants has two factories, one located at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and the other at Faridabad; that the Director General of Technical Development granted licence dated 2-7-79 and 16-1-80 to Faridabad unit for manufacture of two types of products; that subsequently, with the increase in the limit of investment for registration as an SSL, Faridabad unit applied for registration as Small Scale Unit which was granted to them by the Commissioner of Industries on 14-6-1990; that the Commissioner, however, denied the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 for the period 1-4-86 to 30-6-88; that the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 780/2000-B, dated 11-5-2000 [2000 (121) E.L.T. 174 (T)] confirmed the demand for the period prior to 31-8-87 but dropp...

Amar Singh and ors. Vs. Government of N.C.T. Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 103(2003)DLT770

ORDERCWP Nos. 6418,7591/2002 & 48 of 2003 : 1. The challenge in these writ petitions is against action of the respondent authorities who are threatening to impound the auto rickshaws/three-wheelers of the petitioners unless they are fitted with CNG kit. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submits that such threatening is given purportedly relying upon the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. His submission is that vide order dated 18th September, 2001 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/85 entitled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that it never directed compulsory conversion of autos or taxis to CNG single fuel mode. He urges that in view of the aforesaid clarification and in the absence of any direction by Supreme Court, the respondents cannot seize the autos on account of not having been converted to CNG single fuel mode. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, respondents have tried to explain various orders pass...

Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories India Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)756; AIR2003Delhi396; 103(2003)DLT459

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the show cause notice issued by the respondent Corporation dated 14.5.1991 in respect of bill raised for property No. 317-18 Block B, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi. The property was acquired by the petitioner in pursuance to the perpetual lease deed executed on 7.8.1984 though the possession of the plot was taken on 26.3.1977.2. The notice dated 23.3.1990 was issued to the petitioner under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 for assessing the property for vacant land tax with effect from 1.4.1979 to which the petitioner filed the objections. The claim of the petitioner was that no building had been constructed on the land and only a boundary wall has been erected with a tin shed for the Chowkidar to prevent encroachment. The petitioner also claimed vacancy remission in respect of the plot for various years.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two issues raised in the present petition; first is in res...

Cit Vs. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN266(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the value of perquisite in respect of residential accommodation at Modi Nagar be limited to the standard rent fixed by the prescribed authority under section 9 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1973-74. Since answer to question stands concluded by the decision of this court, it is not necessary to state the facts. An issue, similar to the one raised in this reference, came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. M.K. Modi : [1993]200ITR673(Delhi) wherein it was held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessed ...

Cit Vs. Sudhir Kumar Modi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN574(Delhi)

ORDERD.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that the perquisite value of residential accommodation be limited to the value as fixed by the local authority under section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 ?'2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1975-76. Since answer to question stands concluded by the decision of this court, it is not necessary to state the facts. An issue, similar to the one raised in this reference, came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. M.K. Modi : [1993]200ITR673(Delhi) , wherein it was held that for determination of the market value of the perquisite provided to the assessed by way of a rent-free accommodation, the...

Smt. Savitri Avasthi Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum, New Delhi dated 8.10.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 1563/1995 entitled Smt. Savitri Avasthi v. General Manager, Northern Railways. 2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, are that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the appellant was travelling from Kharagpur to New Delhi on 12.12.1994 in Neelanchal Express, and there was no electricity in the evening in the train. When the said train reached New Delhi Station on 13.12.1994 the appellant realized that one brief-case containing valuables was missing. The appellant had been unable to take care of all her belongings on account of the fact that there was no light in the coach. The appellant lodged a complaint with the Railway Authorities, as well as, in the Police Station vi...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Dilip Kumar Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal arises out of order dated 28.1.1999 of District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. C-884/1998entitled Shri Dilip Kumar Aggarwal v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that telephone bearing No. 7253501 was installed at the premises of the respondent-Shri Dilip Kumar Aggarwal. However, on 5.11.1996, the respondent applied for the transfer of the said telephone connection from Wazirpur Industrial Area to Tis Hazari, Delhi and also requested for safe custody of the same during the interim period. The telephone was installed in the chamber of the respondent at Tis Hazari in March, 1997 but the same was not energised. In the meanwhile, as per the requirement of the appellant, the respondent paid up all the pending bills. Despite the payment of the outstanding dues, the telephone of the respondent was not energised and as such the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying fo...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.K. Sharma and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against orders of the District Forum (New Delhi) dated 1.8.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 920/98 entitled Mr. V.K. Sharma and Anr. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent had obtained a Mediclaim Insurance Policy for himself and his family valid from 10.11.1995 to 9.11.1996, on payment of a premium of Rs. 5,670/- by Cheque No. 27946 dated 7th November, 1995. In the proposal Form the respondents had mentioned that on account of a fracture in the right thigh of respondent No. 2 a nail was inserted by Dr. V.B. Bhasin, Orthopaedic Surgeon in Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi which was removed by surgical operation in October, 1995. A fitness certificate was duly obtained from the said doctor dated 8th November, 1995 whereby Dr. V.B. Bhasin had certified that after the removal of the nail from the right thigh of the respondent No. 2 in 1995 she had no handicap or disability...

Samay Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 28.4.1999, passed by the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 67/1998 - entitled Shri Samay Singh v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking. 2. The appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating therein that the appellant is being provided electricity through Meter No. 1448460 bearing K. No. 129545 installed at the shop of the appellant. That the premises where the aforesaid electric connection had been installed is a small shop where the appellant, being an oldman sells sweets, toffees to school-going children in order to pass his time. It was the case of the appellant in his complaint filed before the District Forum that the bills were being raised in respect of the said connection, on minimum consumption basis, as only one bulb and one small fan is being used in...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. B.C. Jhulka

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the orders of District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi dated 20.1.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 22/2000 - entitled Shri B.C. Jhulka v. Assistant Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stating therein that the electric connection bearing No. 6021448111 was installed at the premises of the respondent. The staff of the appellant-DVB conducted an inspection of the said premises on 25.9.1999 and found the half-seals of the meter tampered with and the connected load was also found to be 11.36 KW as against the sanctioned load of 6 KW. As such, a bill on FAE basis was raised for Rs. 36,000/-. The respondent paid up the said bill under protest. However, it was stated by the respondent that the...