Delhi Court January 2004 Judgments

Taher Ali Engineers and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT62TriDel

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune dated 21-4-2003. Appellants are manufacturers of M.S. Pipes (Steel Pipes) falling under sub-heading No. 7306.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The demand involved in these proceedings relates to the period 1997-98. On the basis of a special audit conducted in the month of February 1999, show cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of Rs. 9,02,131/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand only to the extent of Rs. 7,84,899/-. Equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC was imposed apart from demanding interest at the rate of 24% under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order passed by the original authority.2. Even though several contentions are taken in this appeal, we find it necessary to consider only one contention, namely, refusal on the part of the authorities below to take into consid...

Shanti Service Station and ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 109(2004)DLT800; 2004(73)DRJ119

Manmohan Sarin, J.1.Rule.With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks a writ of mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner's request for resitement of its retail outlet/petrol pump. Further, resitement is sought at Durgapur Express High Way West Bengal. The quashing of the letter dated 27.4.1998 is also sought.3. By letter dated 27.4.1998, petitioner was informed that its request for resitement of retail outlet could be not acceded to in view of the dealership having been terminated. 4. I have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petition. Mr. Kaul submitted that this was a hard case, where the petitioner had to abandon the retail outlet and dealership awarded to him in Guwahati, Assam, on account of militancy and terrorists violence. In these circumstances, petitioner had applied for allotment of a fresh outlet in West Bengal in the year, 1996 Peti...

Jatinder Bhalla and anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)478; [2004]268ITR266(Delhi)

1. Against notices issued by the Income-tax Recovery Officer, Range xviii, and the order made by the AO under Section 179 of the IT Act, 1961, the petitioners have filed this petition.2. At the outset, it may be stated that in view of the different notices and separate causes of action, two petitions ought to have been filed. Registry is directed to give separate number in respect of petitioner No. 2 of this petition and may call upon the counsel to pay Court fee, if required to be paid.3. Section 179 refers to liability of directors of a private limited company under liquidation. However, it is also necessary that the case put up by the director of a private limited company be taken into consideration by the AO before making an order adverse to such person. No doubt, the directors will be jointly and personally liable for the payment of tax. However, if he proves that recovery cannot be attributed to gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affair...

State Vs. Holi Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT495; 2004(74)DRJ460

D.K. Jain, J.1. In this leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short), the State seeks to question the legality of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case No.55/2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has held that the respondent was innocent and entitled to acquittal from the charge framed against him for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').2. The case set up by the prosecution was that on receipt of information that a lady tenant of one Nanhe lal had died in a quarrel, the investigating officer reached the spot and found that in one room, adjoining the main gate, one lady with strangulation/ligature marks on her neck, was lying dead on a folding bed. Her name was disclosed to be Kamla (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). She was stated to be the wife of the respondent namely, Holi Ram. In his statement to ...

Ranjeet Kumar Vs. Amit Walia and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT434

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The case of the parties has already received a prima facie determination in terms of the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the revisionist prayer for an injunction. It was held in the Order dated 24.7.2000 that the plaintiff had failed to prima facie disclose his title. The learned Civil Judge permitted the respondent/ defendant to construct a wall on a piece of land admeasuring 22 square yards which according to the Plaintiff/Revisionist was common land. The learned Civil Judge directed that the Defendant/Respondent could construct a wall subject to his filing an undertaking to the effect that if the Court came to a contrary conclusion on the final determination of the suit, this wall would be removed. It is the common case of the parties that subsequent to the passing of these interim Orders by the learned Civil Judge in proceedings between the parties, the wall has been constructed. Approximately one month after the Order dated 24.7.2000 had...

R.C. Srivastava Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by District Forum (South) in Complaint Case No. 2886/1996- entitled Shri R.C. Srivastava v. General Manager, MTNL, Nehru Place. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant who was a subscriber of telephone provided by the respondent-MTNL requested for shifting of the telephone from his residence C-39-B, Gangotri Apartments, Alaknanda to his new residence 23, Suraj Apartments, Pul Pahaladpur, Suraj Kund Road. The request was made on 4.6.1996 but the telephone was not shifted to the new address in spite of several requests by the appellant hence the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum. After filing of the complaint, the telephone was shifted on 15.2.1997. The appellant, however, claimed compensation for mental agony and harassment from the re...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Joginder Kaur Sahni

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal is directed against order dated 20.6.2000 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 1872/99 entitled Mrs. Joginder Kaur Sahni v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the grievance that the respondent was covered for personal accident under the insurance policy Cover Note bearing No. 648948 dated 9.2.1996 for the period 10.2.1996 to 9.2.1997. The respondent had injured herself and had been confined to bed for the period from 6.1.1997 to 19.3.1997 and thereafter confined to the house from 19.3.1997 to 22.4.1997 and as such had lodged a claim under the policy in question for the sum of Rs. 45,993/-. However, the appellant had passed the claim of the respondent for the amount of R...

Rachna Sharma and Another Vs. Institute of Marketing and Management

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the complainant Ms. Rachna Sharma, complainant No. 1 along with her mother Smt. Kusum Sharma, complainant No. 2 against the Institute of Marketing and Management, 62F, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. 2. The case of the complainant is that complainant No. 1 in response to advertisement published in the newspaper joined the O.P. institute for Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration. She deposited Rs. 2,000/- as registration fee on 24.8.1994. The complainant also appeared for written test on 1.9.1994 and interview on 2.9.1994 and she was admitted to the aforesaid course on the basis of written test and interview. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as first instalment of the tuition fee on 9.9.1994. She was issued an identity card by the O.P. institute. The O.P. also asked the complainant Ms. Rachna Sharma to become...

Atul Virmani Vs. M/S. Hotel Hayat Regency

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act by Mr. Atul Virmani against M/s. Hotel Hayat Regency, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that he came to Delhi along with his Maruti Gypsy white colour car bearing registration No. UP-07-3-9149 which he had earlier purchased from M/s. Rohan Motors, Dehradun for Rs. 2,86,395.10 p. According to the complainant he got installed accessories worth Rs. 50,000/- in the said vehicle and the vehicle was insured third party but theft was not included in the policy. The complainant came to Delhi for studies and was temporarily staying At E-89, ground floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The case of the complainant is that on 18.9.1996 at about 11.15 p.m. he visited the O.P. hotel after paying a fee of Rs. 900/- vide Receipt No. 070708 dated 18.9.1996. This fee included the entrance fee as well as charges for safe parking of the vehicle. It is stated that on arrival at t...

Bata Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT333TriDel

2. The appeal/ filed by the appellants was dismissed for non-compliance to provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Applicants filed this application for restoration of appeal on the ground that now they have deposited the amount as per the Stay Order passed by the Tribunal.3. We find that the Tribunal, vide Stay Order, dated 17-1-2002, directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 6-3-2002. Thereafter, the applicants moved an application for modification of the Stay Order, dated 6-3-2002 and the Tribunal rejected the application for modification of the Stay Order, but extended time up to 5-4-2002 for compliance to the conditions of Stay Order. Thereafter, vide order, dated 9-4-2002, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35F of the Act as the appellants failed to comply with the Stay Order passed by the Tribunal.4. In the meantime, the applicants filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 5870 of 2002 with the Hon'ble Punjab ...