Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments

Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)203

ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.All the aforesaid eight appeals arise out of different orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in this group of cases and as most of the issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Relevant facts giving rise to this group of appeals are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), was conducted in group cases of Ajanta Service Station, Delhi Road, Meerut on 22-2-1999, including two residential premises known as 68/3, Kamal Nagar, Meerut where Prem Chand Jain resides and at 127, Mahavir Ji Nagar, Meerut, where Subhash Chand along with family members resides. During search several incriminating documents, said to have been found and seized. It appears that proceedings under section 158A of the Act were initiated in cases of all these assessed's as assessing officer issued separate notices to each o...

Ashok Kumar Garg Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 21.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 843/2002 entitled Shri Ashok Kumar Garg v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Garg had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had obtained a Mediclaim Policy from the respondent for Rs. 1,50,000/- for the period from 21.10.2001 to 20.10.2002. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was stated that in the proposal form, submitted by the appellant, at the time of taking the policy in question, the appellant had mentioned that the appellant got replaced and transplanted his v...

Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC392

1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the demand of Additional Excise Duty of Rs. 2,35,945 on Shoddy Woollen fabrics/blankets as confirmed by the authorities below for the period September to December, 1997 is sustainable or not. Shoddy Woollen fabrics/blankets exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. in value were exempt from payment of Additional Excise Duty leviable under the Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 under Notification No.9/96-CE dated 23.7.96 vide SI. No. 4 of the Table annexed to the Notification. The appellants manufactured and cleared Shoddy Woollen fabrics of both the categories, i.e. of value upto Rs. 100 per sq. m.and exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. during the above period and filed RT-12 Returns from month to month. On the basis of these Returns, the department issued a show-cause notice on 17.2.98, wherein it was alleged that 47305 pieces of Shoddy Woollen blankets exceeding Rs. 100 per sq. m. in value had been cleared without ...

Krishna Maruti and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC591

1. These are six applications for stay of recovery of Central Excise duty and penalty as under: 2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate submitted that M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. imported the components from abroad for their new model vehicle Wagon R and Baleno; that the components of vehicles imported were assessed to Customs duty and additional Customs duty under Heading 87.03 of the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as complete vehicles applying Rule 2(a) of the interpretative Rules and Public Notice issued by Ministry of Commerce; that MUL took MODVAT credit of the Additional Customs duty paid on the components after receipt into their factory; that the imported components were thereafter sent to the various vendors who are Applicants here for manufacture, assembly of further components; that at the time of sending these imported components Maruti reversed the entire CENVAT Credit taken on the components at the rate of 40% and paid the duty accordingly; that based on these ...

R.S. Yadav Vs. V.S.N.L. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)237; 105(2003)DLT95; 2003(68)DRJ641; 2004(1)SLJ59(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1.The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of transfer dated 22.10.2001 as also the release order dated 17.1.2002. By issuing the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2001, the respondent sought to transfer the petitioner from New Delhi to Kanpur. By the order dated 17.1.2002, the petitioner was released from New Delhi with instructions to him to report for duty at Kanpur. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court. While issuing notice on the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order staying the impugned order of transfer dated 17.1.2002, which is operating till today. The petitioner was transferred to Delhi from Dehradoon as Senior Manager on 17.1.1996. On 1.4.1996, while the petitioner was working at New Delhi, he was promoted from the post of Senior Manager to the post of Deputy General Manager. The petitioner, however, at that relevant time, when he was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manag...

Management of Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, In ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)431; 104(2003)DLT851; 2003(68)DRJ528; (2003)IIILLJ61Del

Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present writ petition arises out of the award passed by the Industrial No. III, Delhi, in I.D. Case No. 276/89. By the aforesaid award passed on April 4, 2001 the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference made to it in favor of the respondent No. 2-workmen holding that the order passed against the workman by the management was by way of termination of his services and the same was illegal and unjustified with a further direction that the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages with continuity of service. Even a cost of litigation of Rs. 1,500/- was imposed against the management. The operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court while issuing notice on the writ petition with a condition that the management would deposit the awarded amount in this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the awarded amount is lying deposited in this Court. 2. Pursuant to an application filed by the respondent No. 2 dated February 16, 1987 the petitioner s...

Shri Sushil Kumar Raut Vs. Virender Bhatnagar Sansathan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)537; III(2003)BC185; 105(2003)DLT724; 2003(69)DRJ369

Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. By this judgment, IA. No. 729/2003, under Section 151 for condoning the delay in refiling the suit after removal of objections and IA. No. 1925/2003, under Section 149 CPC for extension of time in payment of the deficit court fee are being decided.2. The facts giving rise to the above applications may be briefly noted:-(i) Plaintiff on 10.10.2002, filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 75 lacs together with pendente lite and future interest @ 18 per cent per annum and costs against the defendant. It was filed with an urgent application, affixing court fee of Rs. 2.75 paise and court fee of Rs. 2.75 paise, being affixed on the memo of parties. On 19.10.2002, the registry returned the suit with the following objection, ' that ad valorem court fee should be paid, might be returned to be refiled within one week.' Suit was one for recovery implicate and the value of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction had been given in the plaint at Rs. 75 lacs by the plai...

Paras Nath Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)641; 2004CriLJ731; 107(2003)DLT169; 2003(3)JCC1500

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. Petitioner/accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC vide judgment dated 19th July,2000 rendered by Metropolitan Magistrate and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months besides a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 279 IPC and further sentenced for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A with default clause. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before Mr. M.S. Sabharwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who though maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from six months to three months for offences under Section 279 and further reduced sentence of one year to 9 months under Section 304-A IPC vide judgment dated 26th July,2002. 3. It is against this judgment the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 4. Although detailed facts of the prosecution case finds place in the judgments of both the C...

K.C. Chopra Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT663

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CW 1575/20031. This writ petition has been filed on account of the water logging problem in the area in question and directions have been sought to installpermanent pumping station.2. The status report has been filed stating that there is a proposal for construction of a drain from Vijay Chowk to Haryana Handloom and from Haryana Handloom to F, Block Krishna Nagar Pump House. The said scheme is stated to have been sanctioned and is under process. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the needful shall be done within a maximum period of seven months from today.3. Insofar as the problem which may arise during the next monsoon season, it has been staled in para 5 of the report that manpower and diesel pump sets are deployed in Krishna Nagar to handle water logging.4. It is directed that the needful should be done well before the onset of monsoon so that the problem of water logging does not occur. This arrangement shall specifically be made in view of t...

Amarjit Singh Bakshi (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]86ITD13(Delhi)

ORDERPer Gupta, J.M.These are two appeals by two assessed against the assessment order under section 158BD read with section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block period i.e., from assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98 (up to 6-11-1996). These two assessments i.e., in case of assessed, individual and Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as the HUF) were completed by passing separate orders. In the case of assessed-individual, the assessment was made on substantive basis and in the case of HUF, the assessment was made on protective basis.2. Brief facts of the case are that a search was conducted at the premises of one Shri N.S. Atwal on 6-11-1996. Some incriminating documents were found and seized. A paper found during the search marked as Annexure A-3 was seized. In this paper some entries were made in regard to sale of and admeasuring 9.16 acres. As per contents of the paper the land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 77 lakhs per acre and the total consideratio...