Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Chander Singh (Since Deceased) Vs. Bharat Bhushan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 110(2004)DLT162; 2004(73)DRJ331

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. These Orders shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 217/2001 and 218/2001. These emanate from a Suit for permanent injunction filed on 23.12.1992 by Late Shri Chander Singh. In paragraph 2 of the Plaint it has been averred by him that the land vests in the Trustees of Bharat Sewak Samaj. The Plaintiff, however, is not Bharat Sewak Samaj, as is clear either by looking at the cause title or the averments contained therein including the description of the Plaintiff at the end of the Plaint. 2. During the pendency of the Suit an application was filed by Late Shri Chander Singh, alleging that he had become the owner of the property by virtue of the execution of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell etc. in his favor by Bharat Sewak Samaj. This fact was sought to be brought on record by way of an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 which had been rejected by the impugned Order dated 15.10.1999. The finding of the learned Civil Judge is that the nature of the Suit wou...

Bhagwat Prasad Joshi Vs. State of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT599; 2005(1)SLJ298(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Rule 33 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1985, of the respondents reads as under :'Rule 33 : Special procedure in certain cases--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 28 or 29 or 30, the disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 26 in any of the following circumstances-- (i) the employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts of conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules; or(iii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Corporation or State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.' 2. It is, thereforee, apparent that only under three contingencies can the procedure for imposition of penalty contained in Rules...

Durgesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Jal Board and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT907

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The matter has been called out twice but there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 8th January, 2002 passed by the learned Labour Court No. IX in I.D. No. 1378/1994.3. By the impugned order, the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 1st February, 1988 was held to be illegal. It has been noted that a demand notice was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent/management on 24th January, 1992 and the statement of claim was filed before the Conciliation Officer on 12th May, 1993.4. Merely because a lot of time has been elapsed between notice of demand and the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, it is not a good ground for completely denying any relief to the petitioner. The learned Labour Court could have moulded the relief properly.5. Under the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the learned Labour Court for deciding the question of relief granted to the p...

Pawha Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)94; [2005]272ITR407(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The assessed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2150/Del/1998 for the asst. yr. 1994-95 decided on 28th Feb., 2003 has preferred this appeal, inter alias raising the question that, the appellant being the owner of the property in question and receiving the entire rent, the Tribunal has committed grave error in arriving at the conclusion that the assessed is not the absolute owner of the property and is entitled to receive only 30 per cent of the annual rent of the property and, thereforee, is eligible for a deduction of 1/5th on only 30 per cent of the rent which he was actually receiving.2. There is an agreement on the record styled as a Collaboration Agreement between S.K. Pawha, P.P. Pawha and Varun Pawha on the one hand and the assessed/appellant on the other. Following are the relevant clauses to be taken into consideration :'2. It is further agreed between the parties that after the superstructure of the entire building on the said p...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Sheela Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT248; 2005(80)DRJ140; 2006(1)SLJ115(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. By filing this petition the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court on The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors v. P.Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. 2004(1) SCALE, State of Haryana and Anr v. Tilak Raj and Ors. 2003 (5) SCA 251 State of Haryana and Ors v. Jasmer Singh and Ors : (1997)IILLJ667SC . On the basis of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, it is contended before us that the impugned order has not taken into consideration the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Supreme Court.2. We have carefully perused the record of the case. There is obvious fallacy in the arguments of the petitioner as from the fact discernible in this case the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support the petitioner. It is an admitted case that the respondent was ap...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Subhash Chand Shorewala (Del)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)57

ORDERG.S. Pannu, A.M.:These two appeals are preferred by the revenue arising out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 30-4-1997 and 28-12-1998, respectively and pertain to assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94.ITA No. 11672. In this appeal, the revenue has assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,000 made on account of penalty paid to the Delhi Stock Exchange.3. The brief background to the dispute is as follows. The assessed individual is a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange engaged inter alia in the business of purchase and sale of shares on behalf of its clients. The assessing officer noticed that the assessed had claimed deduction of an expenditure of Rs. 25,000 on account of Delhi Stock Exchange fine account. The assessing officer disallowed the said expenditure noticing that the same was incurred by the assessed on account of its failure to comply with the rules and regulations governing its business and as such, it could not ...

North Delhi Power Limited Vs. P.C. Sachdev

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 17.7.2003 passed by District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 856/2002 entitled Sh. P.C. Sachdev v. North Delhi Power Limited. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent was having an electric connection bearing No. CL-402-1391967-D471-PN installed at his premises. The appellant had sent a bill dated June, 2002 for the amount of Rs. 3,760/- in which the meter reading was shown as 1370 whereas on checking the meter in question it was found by the respondent that the meter reading was 850 as on 3.8.2002. It was, therefore, the case of the respondent before the District Forum that an amount, in respect of 500 units, had been charged in excess from him and despite several representations to the concerned authorities, he was still being sent bills on the higher side, some of which had later on been corrected and modified. As such the respondent had prayed for ...

Vadhera Luminaries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT211TriDel

1. The issue involved in these appeals, filed by M/s. Vadhera Luminaries Pvt. Ltd. is whether the value of clearances effected under Notifications Nos. 5/98-C.E. and 5/99-C.E., is to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No.8/98-C.E.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electric kettle, iron, lunch box, food warmer, chapati maker, mixer grinder, electric lamp & plastic containers and claimed exemption in respect of electrical goods under Notification No.8/98 or 8/99 and in respect of plastic containers, they availed of exemption under Notifications Nos. 5/98 and 5/99; that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that Notification No. 5/98 or 5/99 provides exemption based on quantity and as such the value of clearances effected under either of these Notifications is to be included in the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of Notification No....

Crop Health Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT366TriDel

1. In this appeal at the instance of the assessee the issue for consideration relates to classification of the appellants product Streptomycin Sulphate 90% W/W + Tetracyclinc Hydro Chloride 10% W/W (for agricultural use). The appellant has classified their product under chapter sub-heading 3808.10 which attracts 8% ad valorem duty, while Department took the view that it is classifiable under 3808.90 attracting duty at the rate of 18%. The original authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the Department and duty demand of Rs. 1,96,019/- was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed.38.08 Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant growth regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-treated bands, wicks and candles, and fly-papers).3808.10 Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, Weedicides 8% and pestici...

Vadehra Luminaries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC259

1. The issue involved in these appeals, filed by M/s. Vadehra Luminaries Pvt. Ltd. is whether the value of clearances effected under Notifications No. 5 /98-CE and 5/99-CE, is to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No.8/98-CE.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture electric kettle, iron, lunch box, food warmer, chapati maker, mixer grinder, electric lamp & plastic containers and claimed exemption in respect of electrical goods under Notification No.8/98 or 8/99 and in respect of plastic containers, they availed of exemption under Notifications No. 5/98 and 5/99; that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that Notification No. 5/98 or 5/99 provides exemption based on quantity and as such the value of clearances effected under either of these Notifications is to be included in the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of Notification No. 8/98 ...