Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments

C.C.E. Vs. Tata Holset Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Apepals) disallowed the benefit of MODVAT credit and set aside the penalty.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants wrongly availed the benefit of MODVAT credit, therefore, and liable for penal action under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.4. The contention of the respondents is that they availed the full credit in respect of capital goods whereas they are entitled to take the credit only to the extent of 50% of the duty paid and on realizing the mistake the respondents on their own reversed the credit, hence they are not liable for any penalty.6. The Respondents relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh, reported in 2001 (46) RLT 169 (CEGAT-Del.) and BPL Sanyo Utilities & Appliances Ltd. v.C.C., Bangalore, 7. In the present case the appellants reversed the credit in respect of the cap...

Glass Equipment (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC60

1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s. Glass Equipment (India) Ltd., the issue involved is whether the processes undertaken by them on the machines received back from the buyers amount to manufacturer.2.1 Shri R.P. Singh, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants manufacture equipment for glass industry; that at times they undertake repair/reconditioning/overhauling of the duty paid machinery received back from the buyers; that the item, received for overhauling is mostly the 'modules' of glass farming IS machine; that the 'module' is in the form of a section box/housing fitted with mechanisms; that for overhauling, these mechanisms are taken out from the housing, dismantled into individual parts which are cleaned with diesel; the parts are then checked to determine as to which of them can be reused and which cannot be used at all, the parts are segregated in two categories -usable and non-usable, the old retrieved usable parts and new parts are then assembled into various mechanism...

Monoflex India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)37; (2003)185CTR(Del)513; 107(2003)DLT786; [2003]264ITR731(Delhi)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The President of India through respondent No. 2 DDA executed a perpetual sub-lease deed dated 10.01.1973 in favor of S. Gurcharan Singh Sethi in respect of property bearing No. A-35, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate situated at Mathura Road, New Delhi. In terms of clause II(6), there is a restriction for sale, transfer, assignment or parting with the possession of whole or any part of the industrial plot except with the previous consent in writing of the Lesser and the Lesser has the right to imp se such terms and conditions as thinks fit including the right to recover unearned increase of 50%. Clause II(7) further provides that the right to recover 50% of the unearned increase and pre-emptive right to purchase the property as mentioned in the s b-lease deed shall apply equally to an involuntary sale or transfer whether it be by or through an executing or insolvency court. 2. A firm M/s. Gurcharan Singh Sethi and Sons owed its dues to respondent No. 1 Commi...

G. Sagar Suri Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ212; 106(2003)DLT439; 2003(71)DRJ49; 2003(3)JCC1387; (2003)135PLR58

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Short question of law arising in this petition is whether the Magistrate has the powers to procure the attendance of the accused through warrants of arrest while taking cognizance of a summons case without giving a finding that the accused has either absconded or will not obey the summons. Answer is emphatic `no' as it lies in the provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C relating to 'issue of process' itself. 2. Facts giving rise to aforesaid proposition of law are, put briefly, as under: 3. Complaint for the offence punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act was filed against the petitioner in 2000. The offence carries a sentence of fine to the maximum limit of Rs.500/- and thereforee is a `summons' case. Vide order dated 23.10.2000 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, while taking cognizance summoned the accused through bailable warrants for a sum of Rs.5000/- . Said order reads as under:-'23.10.2000Present: Sh. O.P. Arya, complainant Accused by summoned with B...

Sh. Sital Dass Rakyan and anr. Vs. Sh. JaIn Khartargachh Sangh (Regd.) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)144; AIR2004Delhi15; 106(2003)DLT436; 2003(71)DRJ653

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This is an application made by defendants No. 1 and 2 under the provision of Order 39 2A CPC and also another application under Order 39 Rule 2A , Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking action against the plaintiffs for flouting the orders of the Court passed on 2nd March, 2001 to the effect that status quo in respect of the property in question be maintained. It is the grievance of defendants No. 1 and 2 that despite such order, the plaintiff No. 1 has started construction in the suit property.2. Plaintiffs have filed reply to this application denying the allegations made in the application and further denying that the plaintiffs were prohibited from making any construction or renovation in the suit property in question i.e. temple.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on both the applications. For the purposes of dealing with these applications it is essential to look into the plaint. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunct...

J.C. Johnson and anr. Vs. Raghbir Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC469; 2003VIAD(Delhi)565

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal whereby the claim application of the appellants claiming compensation for the death of their son in a road accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on 18th February, 1987 was dismissed. The claim application of the appellants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it could not be proved that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently the appellants were held not entitled to the grant of any compensation. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are :- On 18th February, 1987 the deceased along with his friend on the pillion was driving a motorcycle and was going from Panchsheel Park, New Delhi to Som Vihar. It was at about 04.30 pm when the motorcycle was on Venketeshwar Road, R.K. Puram that a bus coming from the opposite...

Subhash Chand and anr. Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT382; 2004(75)DRJ349

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioners, who are both residents of village Mohammedpur, Munirka, New Delhi, apprehend that their property situated in Khasra No.1361/202, measuring 4 bighas 14 bids was would be demolished by the respondent/DDA and that is why they have approached this Court. This matter has a little background in the sense that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of writ petition being CW18/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.01.2003 with the direction that demarcation be carried out. The process of demarcation was thereafter started and it culminated in the demarcation report dated 26.06.2003 submitted by the ADM (South-West). However, the petitioners were aggrieved by the demarcation report and they filed their objections before the learned ADM (South-West) on 11.07.2003. Since their objections were not being heard, they filed a revision petition bearing no. 181/2003 before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. On 08.08.200...

Meera Kanwaria Vs. State Election Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)554; 2003(70)DRJ448

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition the Respondent No, 7's right to hold the office of a Councillor in the Delhi Municipal Corporation is challenged on the ground that she is disqualified to hold the same. Respondent No. 7 represents Ward No. 20, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi which is a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner, who also contested the election and who lost to Respondent No. 7, alleges that Respondent No. 7 does not belong to a Scheduled Caste and that even her Scheduled Caste Certificate has been cancelled by the SDM, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Accordingly, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of quo warranto to the respondents to show under what circumstances, the Respondent No. 7 continues to hold the post of councillor of ward No. 20, Subhash .Nagar, New Delhi.2. Elections to the municipal Corporation of Delhi were held on 24.3.2002. The Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 1, amongst others, ...

Dr. (Ms.) Deepshikha Jiwan Pandit Vs. Ncert and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ442; 2004(3)SLJ74(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Elementary Education in the National Council for Educational Research and Training (for short 'NCERT'), seeks to challenge an order dated 8 August 2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.1560/2003. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has declined to interefere with the order of her transfer from New Delhi to Bhubaneshwar (Orissa).2. Material facts, briefly stated, are as follows:The petitioner, appointed on 20 January 2000, as a Lecturer in early childhood education in the NCERT and posted in New Delhi was transferred and relieved on 13 March 2003, to be posted in the Regional Institute of Education, Bhubaneshwar with immediate effect. She also withdrew transfer T.A. Advance. It appears that on 5 August 2002, the petitioner had made a representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, hereinafter referred to as th...

Monoflex India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]133TAXMAN1(Delhi)

The President of India through respondent No. 2, DDA executed a perpetual sub-lease deed dated 10-1-1973 in favor of S. Gurcharan Singh Sethi in respect of property bearing No. A-35, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate situated at Mathura Road, New Delhi. In terms of clause II(6), there is a restriction for sale, transfer, assignment or parting with the possession of whole or any part of the industrial plot except with the previous consenting writing of the Lesser and the Lesser has the right to impose such terms and conditions as thinks fit including the right to recover unearned increase of 50 per cent. Clause II(7) further provides that the right to recover 50 per cent of the unearned increase and pre-emptive right to purchase, the property as mentioned in the sub-lease deed shall apply equally to an involuntary sale or, transfer whether it be by or through an executing or insolvency court.2. A firm M/s. Gurcharan Singh Sethi & Sons owed its dues to respondent No. 1 Commissioner an...