Delhi Court October 2004 Judgments

Ajay Singh Lal Vs. Smt. Somwati and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)ACC324; 2006ACJ1421; 116(2005)DLT421; [2005(105)FLR195]

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2003 of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation in WCD/162/96 whereby the Commissioner had held the appellant herein to be principal employer and thereby foisted a joint liability upon him to discharge the award.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation are as follows:-'..... that lat Sh.Raju son of Sh.Nathua was employed as Balder with the respondent no.1 for the completion of work of respondent no.2. The deceased was drawing wages @ Rs.1800/- per month and he was 30 years of age at the time of his death i.e. 20-7-96. On 20-7-96 the deceased Sh.Raju was on his duty at the work place i.e. E-115, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He was working as Balder in the construction work and the said premises was owned by Respondent No.2. While working Sh.Raju Died due to accident by slipping from the pad at the time of white-washing etc. at premises E-115, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. It has been also stated ...

Neena Soni Vs. Rakesh Soni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT525

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2003 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Misc.Case No.19/2001/94 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the respondent herein under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional District Judge are as follows:-'....... applicant Along with her daughter was residing at her parental home since 2/11/92. The applicant was residing separately from the petitioner when applicant made complaint to women cell. It is stated in the application that petitioner/non-applicant had sent an undated letter by regd.post A.D. as well as under UPC in which he had exposed his malafide intentions and the applicant replied the said letter, vide reply dated 16/3/93. Thereafter applicant received a notice from the counsel of petitioner and the applicant also replied the same. That on 9/10/94, in the morning father of applicant went to house of petitioner for making a request for reconcili...

Amity Hotels Private Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)607; [2005]272ITR75(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These petitions are preferred by different assesseds questioning the issuance of notices by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BD of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It transpires that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, namely, under Section 131, the search and seizure operation was carried out in respect of M/s Bharat Lottery Agency and its proprietor Shri Praveen Kumar Jolly on 23.06.1999. It is also indicated in the petition that the residential premises of the said Shri Praveen Kumar Jolly was searched. It is in view of this search and seizure of the books of accounts, that a report was submitted by the raiding party. It transpires that on the basis of this Appreciation Report, action has been initiated against all these petitioners. Section 158BD being relevant is quoted hereunder:-'Undisclosed income of any other person 158 BD. Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs t...

Aft Trust-sub 1 and ors. Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)406; [2005]277ITR244(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter alia, praying that (i) orders dt. 15th Nov., 2000 and 4th March, 2002, of the Chairman, CBDT, be quashed; (ii) direction be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to grant approval to the lease agreements dt. 18th Oct., 1999 Under Section 10(15A) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of two aircrafts leased to respondent No. 3; and (iii) direction be issued to the CBDT to refund the amount of Rs. 10,98,42,772 withheld and paid Under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the lease rents paid to the owner of the aircrafts. In the alternative, it is prayed that a direction be issued directing the CBDT to reconsider the application Under Section 10(15A) of the Act seeking approval to the two lease agreements dt. 18th Oct., 1999 in respect of the two aircrafts leased to respondent No. 3 company.2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in this matter and we may straightaway say that we ar...

Shri B.S. Sangwan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR180(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Sections 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the appointment of Arbitrator.2. It has been averred by the petitioner that as per the arbitration clause of the agreement between the parties, the arbitration was invoked by the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd January, 2004 as stated in paragraph 7(n) of the petition. The letter dated 22nd January, 2004 bears out the averment. 3. There is no effective denial of the said averment in the reply furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner though not filed in Court. There is no denial of the existence of the arbitration clause though objection on merits has been raised. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in view of the following position of law laid down in Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. & Another reported as JT2000 (2) 226 wherein the relevant para 19 reads as follows:-'19. So far as cases falling under Section 11(6) are concerned-such as...

B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Balbir Singh

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This is a case of double billing of electricity under K. No. 000-129226 and 813-12922223. The bills were being sent to the respondent on the wrong connection for which he approached the Bijli Lok Adalat and the appellant did not pay any heed to the requests of the respondent. The Bijli Lok Adalat directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000/- and in spite of depositing the same the appellant has not credited the bills and has instead been threatening to disconnect the connection. Vide impugned order dated 21.1.2003 the appellant has been directed to rectify the bill of October, 2002 after giving due adjustments to the payments already made by the respondent and issue rectified bill to the respondent as per misuse tariff. 2.Through this appeal the appellant has assailed the finding of the District Forum that the raising of bill for the arrears of last 68 months by the appellant in the bill of February, 2001 and the same arrears which were reflected in the bil...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijay Kapoor and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 3.6.1998 whereby the appellant was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,41,250/- to the respondent with interest @ 15% w.e.f. 18.8.1993 paid as earnest money towards purchase of the shop in auction as the respondent had given highest bid but on account of non-payment of balance consideration the shop was allotted to somebody else. 2. There is no dispute that the respondent was the highest bidder in the auction of allotment of shops and the bid amount was Rs. 9,65,000/-. He deposited 25% of the bid amount of Rs. 2,41,250/- on the spot and the rest of the money was required to be deposited within 30 days after issue of the demand letter. The appellant issued the demand letter on 20.12.1993 calling upon the respondent to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 7,52,745/- inclusive of other dues within 30 days. The respondent failed to deposit the said amount within the said period and requested for extension of time vide letter d...

Cce Vs. Triveni Undertaking

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC287Tri(Delhi)

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- as the respondents made default in making the fortnightly payment of duty. On appeal filed by the Revenue the Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the penalty to Rs. 10,50,000/-.3. The contention of the appellant is that the penalty should be equal to the amount of duty as the duty amount is Rs. 21,87,096/-, therefore, the penalty should be enhanced to the amount of duty.Escorts JCB v. CCE after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MP v. BHEL held that the adjudicating authority has discretion to impose lesser amount of penalty the mandatory penalty. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed....

Birla Copper Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC1103Tri(Delhi)

2. The appellant filed this appeal against adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The brief fats of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Copper Cathodes. The appellants were availing the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of input used in their final product. The main raw material for the manufacture of their final product is Copper Concentrate. The appellant were clearing their final products i.e. Copper Cathodes on payment of duty and during manufacture of the final product one by-product comes into existence that is the "Sulphuric Acid". The appellant were clearing the Sulphuric Acid on payment of duty as well as under Chapter X procedure provided under Notification No. 6/2002 to the fertilizer manufacturer. The Revenue is demanding amount equal to 8% of the value of the Sulphuric Acid cleared to the fertilizers manufactures under Chapter X procedure.4. The contention of the appellant is that the Revenue is admitting this f...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT367TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioned (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original and allowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,55,105/- to the respondents.2. None has come on behalf of the respondents although notice for today's hearing was issued to them on 19-7-2004. They have also made no request for adjournment. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. From the perusal of the record, I find that Modvat credit of above said amount has been availed by the respondents on the cash memo/invoices of M/s. IIPCL and M/s. Hindustan CIBA Geigy Ltd. which did not contain the necessary details required under Rule 52-A of the Rules. The adjudicating authority recorded detailed findings regarding the status of both the companies who issued the cash memos/invoices to the respondents. According to that authority, M/s. IIPCL acted as a dealer of M/s. IOC while M/s. Hindustan CIBA Geigy Ltd...