Delhi Court May 2003 Judgments

Krishna Electrical Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)575

1. These are two appeals by assessee and Department against the order of CIT(A) relating to asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The only ground in appeal of the assessee is in not allowing the depreciation of Rs. 8,58,226.2.1 At the time of hearing, the counsel of the assessee stated that originally the CIT(A) has not decided this issue, therefore, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. However, in the meantime the assessee moved application under Section 154 before the CIT(A), who by accepting the application under Section 154, directed the AO to allow the depreciation as per law, Therefore, the appeal of the assessee has become infructuous.2.2 In view of these facts and circumstances, we treat this appeal of the assessee as infructuous. Therefore, the same is dismissed.3. The Department is objecting in holding that there is no transfer of capital asset and deleting the addition of Rs. 80 lakhs being capital gain computed by the AO.3.1 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its ...

University of Delhi Vs. Shri R.K. Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)95; 105(2003)DLT699; 2003(71)DRJ1; 2004(1)SLJ170(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 13th October 2000 by which the termination of the services of respondents 2 to 4 were found to have been illegally and unjustifiably and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of services and 50 per cent of back wages from the date of termination till their reinstatement. The reference to the Labour Court dated 22nd July 1992 arose on the following terms: 'Whether the termination of the services of S/Shri Tej Pal Jain, Mukesh Kumar and Shamsiddin is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?' 2. The workmen's case set up before the Labour Court is as follows: a) That they had joined the services of the petitioner with effect from 15th December 1998, 1st June 1990 and 2nd February 1987 respectively and their services were illegally terminated on 28th February 1991 b) Upon 240 days continuous employment their servic...

Continental and Eastern Agencies Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)294; AIR2003Delhi387; 106(2003)DLT340

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,89,434/- towards agency commission. Plaintiff is agent of defendant No. 3, an Italian company, in India. Defendant No. 1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and is a unit of defendant No. 2. Brief resume of facts pleaded by the plaintiff in respect of its claim is like this:-2. Defendant No. 1 floated a global tender for purchase of two Hydraulic Crankshaft Grinding Machines on 24.9.1986. Plaintiff gave an offer dated 22.9.1986 for two machines. Earlier plaintiff had supplied four similar machines to defendant No. 1 vide their order dated 5.2.1985. Later defendant No. 1 sought some clarifications and also the amendment in terms if four machines were purchased instead of two.3. In original offer the plaintiff had offered that agency commission would be 15% of FOB value of order. By letter dated 7.3.1987, plaintiff offered discount of 5% on commission if entire order was placed on plaintiff and 100% commission was paid on receipt of ship...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hcl Office Automation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT937TriDel

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the Revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) dated 5-5-2002.2. The issue raised herein relates to the claim of the respondent/assessee for deduction of retailing expenses. Pursuant to an order passed by this Tribunal dated 18-3-99, this issue was examined by the adjudicating authority and by order dated 31-3-01, it was held that the respondents are entitled to retailing expenses only to the extent of 8.5%. The above order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the assessee.3. The assessee had contended that it is entitled to claim retailing expenses at 20% of the retail price. In support of the above contention the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modi Xerox relating to same type of goods namely photocopy machines where 28% had been allowed as retailing expenses.Reliance was also placed on circular issued by C.B.E.C. dated 8-8-75 directing that in determining ...

Pgo Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT359TriDel

1. M/s. PGO Processors Pvt. Ltd. have filed the present Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 442/2002, dated 24-6-2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their claim for refund of duty.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture processed fabrics on job work basis; that on insistence by the Department they started paying duty on the price at which the fabrics is sold by the principal manufacturer on whose account they are doing the job work and not on the basis of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case; that they subsequently filed claims for refund of duty which has been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the show cause notice No.V/55/15/OF/96-98, dated 15-1-1999 had been issued to them which is under Adjudication and the matter whether they are required to discharge the duty liability on the basis of cost or on the basis of sale value has not been settled; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had...

Mangal SaIn and Sons Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR331(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT993; 2003(69)DRJ413; 2003(2)RAJ610

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Petitioner had a telephone line bearing No. 7223339 installed at the residence of one of its partners. This telephone line had STD facility. Another telephone line bearing No. 7126030 was also installed at the same place in the name of the wife of one of the partners of the firm. One Mr. Virender Kumar who is the son-in-law of one of the partners of the firm was the General Manager (Planning), Department of Tele-communication. During his visit to Delhi between 22nd November, 1992 and 26th November, 1992, the respondent provided a temporary telephone line bearing No. 7251316 for his use at the address of the petitioners as he was staying with the partner of the firm. This telephone line also had STD facility. Mr. Virender Kumar left Delhi on 26th November, 1992 and the telephone line bearing No. 7251316 was dis-connected on the same day. In January, 1993 a telephone line was sanctioned in the name of one Mr. Rakesh Mehta at his residence in Rana Pratap Bagh. Telephon...

Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ2759; 104(2003)DLT824; II(2003)DMC328; 2003(69)DRJ6

J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Though State has the locus standi to prefer such petitions, since petitioner is the wife and on her complaint case was registered and charge sheet was filed, and has grievance against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by Ms. Nisha Saxena, Metropolitan Magistrate this is being entertained.2. Vide impugned order charge for the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC for misappropriation of dowry articles and istridhan was framed against her husband only and her father-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law (wife of one of the brothers of her husband) and her unmarried sister-in-law were discharged and charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC i.e. harassment of the wife by the husband and his relatives for inadequate dowry or non-fulfillment of demands of dowry was framed against the husband and father-in-law alone. According to the petitioner/wife, every member of the family though the elder brother of the husband died during the proceedings should have been su...

Ramnath Exports Private Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, Air India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)281; AIR2003Delhi461; III(2003)BC374; 2006(2)CTLJ94(Del); 105(2003)DLT341

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery on account of cost of goods shipped by the plaintiff for delivery to the buyers at Denmark booked through the defendants. The plaintiff firm is engaged in business of import and export. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff was placed with an order from Denmark buyer M/S Gording Skofabrik A/S, Alunden 2, 6690 Gording, for supply of 3000 pairs of leather Shoe Uppers to be consigned to M/S Gording Skofabrik A/S, Alunden2, 6690 Gording, Denmark through their agent M/S Senn-Nordica Aps, Denmark vide his Telex Message No. 12610-LJ dated 24.11.80 and plaintiff perform invoice NO. 213/80-1353 dated 18.12.80 for Rs. 2,30,193.75 duly confirmed by the consignee. 2. The plaintiff firm at the first instance shipped 30 packages containing the footwear uppers vide their invoice NO. 213/81-1266 for Rs. 1,15,608.75 under Air India Airway Bill NO. 098-32259861 dated 7.3.81 from Delhi to Esbjerg Airport, Copenhagen, Denmark. The plaintiff...

Suman Kabra Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Others

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 16.11.2002, passed by District Forum (North-West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 25/2002, entitled Smt. Suman Kabra v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Smt. Suman Kabra had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent MTNL. The complaint, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order on the ground that the same was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the ap...

Satpal Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board (South Zone)

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 24.1.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 4338/2000, entitled Shri Satpal Singh v. Delhi Jal Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Satpal Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. In the complaint filed by the appellant, before the District Forum the grievance raised related to his water connection. It was stated that the respondent had raised excessive bills for water consumption and had disconnected his water connection on the basis of excessive demands raised by the respondent. 3. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent Delhi Jal Board and in the reply...