Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Mahender Pratap Teneja Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT24

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.C.W. 869/2002 :1. The petitioner registered himself with the respondent for allotment of MIG flat under the NPRS, 1979 scheme. The petitioner was allotted a flat at Rohini in pursuance to the allotment letter dated 23.4.1990 on a hire purchase basis. The petitioner deposited the initial amount as also the documents required for taking over the possession and the possession letter was issued to the petitioner on 8th March, 1991. The petitioner, however, did not take possession and addressed a letter dated 18.12.1991 after a period of 19 months stating that he had gone to the flat in question and found certain defects which are as under:'1. Wash Basin, Sink in kitchen and both to be provided -- Fixing of windows glass panes--and its fittings--handles--stoppers -- is to be provided--glass strips fixed in the floor of the lobby/kitchen-bed/ terrace need to be rectified as it can damage the feet-Door fittings are rusted and are not in proper orders -- WC systems i...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT623TriDel

1. The common issue involved in these 4 appeals, filed by M/s. Escorts Ltd., is whether Modvat credit is available to them in respect of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods cleared to their another factory under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2-4-1986 without payment of duty.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are having various divisions in various premises at Faridabad; that the Tractor Engineering Division (TED) manufacture tractor parts which are removed to another division, namely, tractor division where parts are used in the manufacture of tractors; that these parts are cleared without payment of duty availing the benefit of Notification No. 217/86; that the de-partment has disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that Modvat credit is not admissible when the final goods are cleared without payment of duty. He, further, submitted that the dispute relates to applicability or otherwise of Rule 57C of the Centr...

Housing and Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Spl. Range-24

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by the assessee the challenge is to the order of the authorities below who according to the assessee have brought to tax the interest earned by it on the placement of surplus funds with institutions like Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) within the provisions of the Interest Tax Act, 1974. The assessee has challenged the orders of the authorities below on the grounds enumerated below : - 1. On the facts and circumstances of our case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the treatment of the AO in subjecting to tax the interest earned on deposit of surplus funds within the meaning of Section 7(2) of the Interest Tax Act of 1974. 2. The CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting out plea that chargeable interest of a credit institution should only include any interest earned on loans and advances made by it in terms of the provision contained in section 5 read with section 2(7) of the interest tax act and that there is no warrant in law to include any interest ...

Kalpana Tyagi Vs. Sneh Lata Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)187; II(2003)BC536; 2003CriLJ3395; 104(2003)DLT127; 2003(68)DRJ14

R.C. Chopra, J.1. These two petitions under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) are directed against orders dated 21.2.1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing in default the complaints filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as' the Act' only). Both the complaints filed by the petitioner were dismissed when none had appeared on her behalf but the accused respondent was present with her Counsel. The revisions filed by the petitioner against the said orders were dismissed by the learned ASJ vide orders dated 22.7.1994.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records.3. Before adverting to the question as to whether the complaints dismissed in default should be restored or not, this Court has been called upon to decide as to whether the revisions filed by the petitioner before t...

D.D.A. Vs. Foundengers P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR499(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT418; 2003(68)DRJ383; 2003(2)RAJ392

Khan, J.1. An award for Rs. 2 lacs or so passed in favor of respondent is hanging fire for the last about 14 years or more. 2. Appellant allotted the contract to respondent for construction of houses which was to commence on 9.10.1984 and was to be completed up to 7.2.1985. The work was, however, completed 11 months late on 7.1.1986. Appellant then issued a letter of levy of compensation on 7.6.1988, after 29 months and intimated final bill to respondent on 19.7.1988. He reacted to this setting up some claims by communications dated 25.8.1988 and 28.11.1988 and eventually invoked arbitration on 7.1.1989 raising as many as 7 claims. He firstly complained of deduction of Rs. 57,545/- on account of compensation levied by Appellant's Superintending Engineer in terms of clause 2 of the agreement which was not opposed by appellant during arbitration proceedings. He finally succeeded in some claims and obtained award dated 15.11.1993. 3. When the award was filed for being made rule of the cou...

Mathura Dass and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 104(2003)DLT147; I(2003)DMC755; 2003(67)DRJ695; 2003(2)JCC639

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This Revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) is directed against an order dated 26.5.2001 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed framing of charges under Sections 306/498-A read with Section 34, IPC against the petitioners.2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the deceased Ritu Sharma was married to petitioner No. 3 in the year 1987. On 20.5.2000, she suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home. She was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries on 23.5.2000. While making a statement before the doctor at the time of admission as well as in her dying declaration recorded by the Investing Officer on 21.5.2000, she had stated that the burn injuries suffered by her were accidental. However, on 1.6.2000 Padam Sharma, brother of the deceased lodged an FIR alleging that since her marriage the deceased Ritu Sharma was being har...

Master 'X' vs. 'Y'

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2003Delhi195; 2003(69)DRJ21

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this Judgment IAs 5018/2002 and 5019/2002 are being decided. Vide is 5018/2002 plaintiff seeks a direction to the defendant to undergo the DNA test along with plaintiffs mother, to establish the parentage of the plaintiff. By is 5019/2002 direction to the defendant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of suit till disposal is sought.2. These two applications are made in the suit filed by the minor through his next friend and mother, by which the plaintiff seeks maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to be paid by the defendant. Plaintiff also seeks a declaration of defendant being the father of the plaintiff. Further declaration as to the entitlement of the plaintiff to all the rights and interest, as a son of the defendant is sought, due from the defendant as his father. A decree for mandatory injunction is also sought against the defendant to undergo DNA Test for establishing the parentage of the plaintiff.3. Written statement ...

Mirabai Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Siti Cable Network and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(26)PTC473(Del)

B.A. Khan, J.1. The 'Monsoon Wedding' may have come and gone but the litigation generated by it was still raging. The present controversy though rendered irrelevant in the course of time relates to rejection of appellant's request for interim injunction to restrain respondents and their distributors, franchisees and assignees from un-authorisedly telecasting/screening this film on their cable networks.2. Appellant is the producer of the film and respondents are cable television network operators providing cable television network, cable internet access and other several related services in several parts of the country through their associate/subsidiary companies, distributors, franchisees, assignees, head ends and cable operators. Both are engaged in shadow-boxing over the apprehended piracy of the film.3. It appears that before the film was released, appellant filed injunction suits in a peremptory action to restrain respondents and their distributors, franchisees and assignees from u...

Pnb Capital Services Ltd. Vs. Atul Glass Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 105(2003)DLT767; 2003(70)DRJ80; (2003)135PLR39; [2004]51SCL122(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Punjab National Bank. The plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over possession of the two Diesel Generating Sets, particulars of which are given in Annexure-A to the plaint. Written statement on behalf of the defendant has been duly filed. The plaintiff upon the filing of the written statement, moved is 10326/02 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking a decree on the admissions contained in the written statement. The material facts as averred by the plaintiff in the plaint are not disputed or traversed by the defendant in the written statement. The defendant has raised a legal objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit on account of the bar and embargo by virtue of Section 22(1) and (3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA). 2. Before I advert to the above, the relevant facts in brief ma...

Cce Vs. Pyramid Software and Tech.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC464Tri(Delhi)

1. Revenue filed these appeals against the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the value of carry bags and AC-DC static converters is not to be included in the assessable value of automatic data processing machines manufactured by the respondents.2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The notice issued to the respondents was received back with the postal remarks 'left', therefore, the appeals are being taken up in the absence of the respondents.4. Carry bags, which were supplied with every automatic data processing machine (computer), were separately mentioned in the invoice. The computers, in question, are lap-tops, which are carried in these bags, alongwith accessories of computer. As the respondents are clearing the lap-tops with carry bags in the course of trade, the value of carry bags is not to be included in the assessable value of the lap-top computer.5. In respect of AC-DC static converters...