Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Gautam Sarkar and ors. Vs. Ram Krishan Kulwant Rai School

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)81; 104(2003)DLT1030

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Against the increase of school fee and other charges, complaints dated 25th April, 2001 and 10th April, 2002 were filed with the Director of Education. As per the petitioner, the Director of Education did not take any steps for consideration of the aforesaid complaints and in these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed. The petitioner has relied upon order dated 15th December, 1999 issued by the Officer of Directorate of Education which lays down formalities for considering such complaints. A perusal of this order would show that this order was passed in pursuance of the judgment dated 30th October, 1998 of this Court in CWP No. 3723/1997 and the findings of Justice (retired) Duggal Committee as contained in the report dated 31st July, 1999. The recommendations of the Justice Duggal Committee were accepted and aforesaid order dated 15th December, 1999 was passed by the Director of Education in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section (3) of...

Ravi Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)647; 107(2003)DLT285; 2003(70)DRJ684; 2003(3)JCC1495

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. The appellant, vide judgment dated 30th July, 1997 was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 and also under Section 324 of the IPC and consequently sentenced to suffer life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause of six months imprisonment. The appellant was further sentenced to imprisonment of six months for commission of offence under Section 324 of the IPC. Order on the points of sentence was made on 31st July, 1997. 2. The appellant has assailed both, the conviction and the sentence by way of preferring the instant appeal 3. Facts as set out in the police report sent under the provision of Section 173 Cr.P.C. are that on 5th January, 1995 Vikram since deceased and Jaspal Singh were going from Baba Colony from the side of 25 Foota Road at about 7.20 P.M. when the appellant met them on the way. All the three then went towards street near Worship Public School. While they were talking to each other, Jaspal Singh ...

Smt. Renu Gupta and anr. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 108(2003)DLT488

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The jurisdiction of the concerned authorities under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as 'the DLR Act') during the pendency of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act') is the principal question which arises for consideration in these two writ petitions.2. The factual matrix in the two writ petitions is limited. The petitioners therein filed a suit for declaration before the Court of SDM/Revenue Assistant on 30th August, 1990 claiming rights to the lands as Bhumidar under Section 85 of the DLR Act. During the pendency of those proceedings, Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 19th March, 1993 in respect of the same land and under Section 6 of the LA Act on 20th April, 1993. The concerned SDM passed a declaration on 6th September, 1993 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 4854/99) and on 20th January, 1993 (in Civil Writ Petition No. 4855/99) declaring the petitioners as Bhumida...

Lalsons Enterprises Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)1050

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.This appeal, preferred by the assessed, is directed against order dated 21-3-2002, of CIT-III, New Delhi passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), revising the income to Rs. 1,31,72,990 as against Rs. 5,60,720 originally assessed in the order dated 30-3-2000, passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. Relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessed filed return for assessment year 1998-99 at an income of Rs. 5,57,680 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act at Rs. 5,60,720 by the assessing officer. After going through the record the learned CIT was of the view that assessment completed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he issued notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessed pointing out different errors committed by the assessing officer in respect of different disallowances etc. and after considering the reply submit...

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Prof. Surendra Prakash Seth and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum (Central), Delhi dated 14.5.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. 1958/1999entitled Prof. Surendra Prakash Seth v. Managing Director/Director Engineering, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Anr. 2. The case of the respondent No. 1 before the District Forum, in brief, was that the said respondent Shri Surendra Prakash Seth had purchased a new Maruti Car-800 bearing Registration No. DL 6C 2897 from respondent No. 2 M/s. Bagga Link Motors (P) Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 8.11.1997 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,323/-. The gear box of the said car became defective before the second service at 2130 kms. and as such the case assembly of the same was changed by the respondent No. 2 Bagga Link Motors (P) Ltd. Thereafter before the third free service on 3.9.1999 when the car had only covered 4587 kms. the gear box of the car broke down while driving and the car stopped with a major impact. Accordingly, the vehicle was sent for repa...

Cce Vs. Moon Beverage Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC598

1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 03/Comm/MRT-I/97 dated 21.8.1997 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.2. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. The issue which came up for decision in the impugned order was the valuation of Aerated Water manufactured and sold by the respondents M/s Moon Beverage Ltd. during the period 1994-95. Originally the goods were assessed provisionally. Subsequently, Show-cause Notice was issued alleging that valuation was incorrect. The Commissioner ordered acceptance of the ex-factory price as the basis of assessment with the following observations: "It is a, fact that the party is selling a part of their goods at the factory gate for sale within Ghaziabad and Sahibabad. The rest are transferred to Delhi depots for gale in Delhi area the percentage of sale at the factory gate is 4.5% & 20% in the period covered by the SCN & subsequent year respectively. This fact has also been veri...

S.V. Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT534TriDel

1. We have been called upon to decide on an issue referred by the Northern Bench (S) of this Tribunal in view of conflicting decisions on the issue by Two Member Benches. The issue is whether a plain Molybdenum wire used in the manufacture of Tungsten filament falling under Heading 85.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule is an input eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period December, 1996 to July, 1997.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of electric filaments viz. Tungsten filaments falling under the above Tariff Heading, during the above period of dispute. They used Molybdenum wire in the manufacture of Tungsten filament in the following manner :- Tungsten wire of the required size was wound tightly around a Molybdenum wire of predetermined size on a Primary Coiling Machine with the pitch requisitely adjusted. The coil so produced on the primary coiling machine was called primary coil. The primary coil was t...

Arvind Chemi Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT91TriDel

2. Both the authorities below have disallowed Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 79, 534/- taken by the appellants in February, 1998 on the ground that the inputs had not been received in the factory. A penalty of equal amount has also been imposed on the party under Rule 57-I(4) read with Rule 173Q.3. The appellants reversed the entire credit before issue of the show cause notice and they have no further grievance in relation to the admissibility of the credit. Their only grievance in this appeal is regarding the penalty. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that they had no criminal intent in the matter of availing the credit. The inputs could not be received in their factory only because the vehicle transporting the goods was involved in an accident on its way to their factory. In the absence of mens rea, ld. Advocate argues, there should not have been any penalty in this case. Ld. DR opposes this plea and submits that, once irregular availment of Modvat credit is admitted, the ...

K. Dharmarajan, Ias Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ38CAT

1.This reference has been made in pursuance of the difference of opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench in their order dated 8.7.2002.2. I have heard Mr. Jayant Dass, learned senior Counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.R. Sachdeva, learned Counsel for the respondents.Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted a folder showing the Assessment Chart of 1966 batch of IAS Officers, for the original empanelment for Secretary (Extracts of File No. 1121/86-CSA) and a tabular chart of the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the concerned 17 officers mentioned in the O.A. and that of the applicant, in pursuance of the previous order dated 17.3.2003, copy placed on record. He has also submitted the ACR folders of the aforesaid 17 officers which are also referred to the opinion of Hon'ble Shri S.A.T.Rizvi, Member (A) dated 8.7.2002. These records as well as the pleadings and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been carefully considered.3. In...

P.E.S. Installation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chief Engineer (Civil), Pwd/Circ ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)121; 103(2003)DLT813

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is said to be in the business of supplying medical equipments. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are officers of the Delhi Government and Respondent No. 3 is a hospital under the Delhi Government. Respondent No. 4 is also a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. According to Respondent No. 4, it is carrying on the business of supply of medical gases pipeline systems.2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 issued a pre-qualification notice in the daily newspapers on 20th July 2001. As per the notice, Respondent No. 2 invited applications for pre-qualification of firms for the issue of tenders on behalf of the President of India from approved and eligible contractors of CPWD and those on the appropriate list of PWD and MES and specialized firms dealing in the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of medical gases systems. The work for which the notice was issued was for the ...