Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Lala Om Prakash Son of Late Lala Mithan Lal Vs. Hari Ram Son of Late L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi190; 116(2005)DLT71; 2005(79)DRJ453

Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25th April, 2003, inter alia, holding that there was no oral partition of the suit property and the respondent was not estopped from filing the suit because parties were living in the suit property for more than 30 years, a preliminary decree for partition of the suit property was passed. A local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition in equal shares.2. Mr.Pramod Aggarwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the impugned judgment is based on conjunctures and surmises and the observation in the impugned judgment is beyond the pleadings and the evidence on record. It as contended before us that when pursuant to the oral agreement between the parties, parties have acted upon the said oral agreement and living separately in specific portions in the said property for more than 30 years, the property stands partitioned and nothing more was required to be done....

Bombay Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Raj Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT609; 2005(82)DRJ104

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The prayers in this suit are as follows:(a) grant a decree for declaration in favor of the Plaintiff Company and against Defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that the Agreement to Sell dated 19.11.2003 entered into by Defendant No. 3, is illegal, null and void and is non-est is of no effect and is not binding on the Plaintiff Company;(b) a decree of permanent injunction may also be granted in favor of the Plaintiff Company and against the Defendants No. 1 and 2 and not to disturb the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff Company of plot No. 47, Block No. 9, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi or any part of the said plot;(c) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The valuation of this suit is contained in paragraph 4 which read thus:The value of the Suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is as under:Court Fees Valuation Court Feespaidi) For grant of decreeof declar...

D.C.M. Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN124(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CJ. In these two appeals for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the following question is sought to be raised by the assessed:'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum credited to Molasses Storage Fund out of the sale proceeds of molasses was to be included in the income of the appellant?'(In ITA No. 714/2004 for the assessment year 1988-89 the sum credited to Molasses Storage Fund was Rs. 7,61,581 and in ITA No. 716/2004 for the assessment year 1987-88 the amount was Rs. 6,23,872).2. There is no dispute that the appellant, in respect of different assessment years, approached this court by preferring appeals being ITA Nos. 588/ 2004,1/2002 and 99/2002. In those appeals the identical question (except for different amounts) was raised. Those appeals were decided by this court on 1-10-2004.3. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted raising the said question. As the identical issue has been decided, at the request of the learned counsel, we are takin...

Vakil Chand JaIn Vs. Tax Recovery Officer

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN299(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, CL The petitioner, at the relevant time, was a Director of respondent No. 4 company, which is declared as a defaulter under the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). It is contended by the petitioner that he resigned as a Director on 10-9-1977. However, on behalf of the respondent it was pointed out that there is sufficient material to show that though he resigned as a Director, in view of the decision of the Board of Directors, he continues to be liable along with other Directors. We are not required to examine this aspect of the matter at this stage, Suffice it to say that the Tax Recovery Officer pointed out to the petitioner about the misfeasance and negligence and that the petitioner was involved in an excise matter wherein a fine of Rs. 1,500 was imposed. The Tax Recovery Officer also pointed out that the petitioner's assets are required to be attached in view of section 179 of the Act and, thereforee, he issued...

Bloks International Vs. India Overseas Bank and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant availed the services of O.P. No. 1 Indian Overseas Bank for negotiating the documents for the purpose of export of handicraft items to USA. In return O.P. No. 1 availed the services of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 as a courier by way of transmitting the documents through courier. Since the documents could not reach the destination the goods exported by the complainant also did not reach to its consignee. On account of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. the complainant has through this complaint sought compensation of the value of consignment of the goods amounting to Rs. 1,30,683.70 p. with interest @ 18% holding the O.Ps. jointly and severally liable besides the cost of the complaint. 2. Facts lie in a moderate compass. The complainant procured an order for export of items of handicrafts comprising bone brass necklaces and brass purse for the value of US Dollars 2685.10 from its foreign buyer M/s. Profile Du Monde, Los Angels, USA. As all the ex...

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Surya Kiran Polypack (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT386TriDel

1. Shri S. Bhatnagar, learned JDR, appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the central excise officers on visit to the factory of the respondents found excess of 4 MT. of polypropylene for which they could not produce any documentary evidence and these were not entered in their stock account. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have upheld the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the respondents.2. Shri Ramesh Nair, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents pleaded that 4 MT. polypropylene which was said to have been found excess was received in their factory as inputs for the manufacture of their finished products. The documents for these inputs were received in their head office which is 35 K.M. away from the factory and it took time for them to send the documents to the factory and thereafter these goods could have been entered in their RG-23A account. Therefore, it is not the case of non-accountal of finished goods or non-accountal of the goods on which duty i...

Dhiman Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(98)ECC442

1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned Order-in-Original vide which the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh has confirmed the duty . demand with penalty for the period September 1997 to September 1998 as detailed therein against the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that order dated 29.11.2000 determining the annual production of capacity of the mills, after the remand case by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.2000 of the appellants alongwith other noticees namely M/s Bhagwati Steel Industries, M/s Shri Guru Hargobind Steel Industries and M/s Baba Balak Nath Steels Ltd., was set aside vide order dated 20.9.2001 by the Tribunal as reported in Bhagwati Steel Industries and Ors. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2001 (136) ELT 1047 and as such, no differential duty could be confirmed against the appellants on its basis.3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has not disputed that after setting aside of the order dated 29.11.2000 determining the annual capacity of the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Airtech Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC187

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether dumper placers manufactured by M/s. Airtech Pvt. Ltd. are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996.2. Ms. Charul Barnwal, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that Notification No. 8/96 (S. No. 87/10) prescribes duty at the rate of 15% ad valorem in respect of dumpers confirming to the specification mentioned in the Notification; that dumper placers, manufactured by the respondents are nothing but dumpers; that both dumper and dumper placer continued to be vehicle of transport falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the dumper placer are used to lift and carry the sludge/wastage filled containers to the dumping grounds; that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN, Heading 87.04 covers in particular refuse collectors whether or not fitted with loading, compressing, damping, etc. devices. Learned Senior Departmental Repr...

Cce Vs. Superintending Engineer, Tnseb

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC106

1. This Order will dispose of the Reference Application moved by the Revenue under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act.2. The facts giving rise to the above-said application may briefly be stated as under: 3. The respondents are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Sub-heading 7309.90 (prior to 1.3.88). The classification list No.59/87 filed by them was approved by the Assistant Commissionerw .e.f.27.5.87 indicating that 5 items manufactured by the unit as non-excisable, as no manufacturing activity in respect thereof took place. Thereafter, the respondents lodged refund claim of Rs. 6,43,544.60 on 4.10.1988 for the duty paid on those five items on the ground that the classification list was received by them on 23.9.80 and that the duty was paid by them under protest. The Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings for the rejection of the refund claim as the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 233-B of the Rules. After adjudication, the Ass...

Jheel Kuranja Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Delhi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT491; 2005(79)DRJ369

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Challenge is to a public notice dated 9.7.2001 (Annexure P-5) demanding sewage development charges @ Rs. 200/- per sq. meter from the owners of plots in Jheel Khurenja. Public notice states that work of internal sewerage system has been completed and made functional for collection, removal and disposal of all filth, polluted and obnoxious matters from latrines, urinals and cesspools. owners/occupiers of land and buildings in the area were called upon to pay the charges and obtain sewer connections. It was made known that irrespective of whether one takes the sewer connection or not, charges have to be paid. Option for payment in installments with 12% simple interest was given. 20% rebate for prompt payment was notified. Public notice has been issued by Delhi Jal Board (DJB).2. It is stated by the petitioners that in the year 1915-16, the Delhi Improvement Trust developed a colony in Jheel Khuranja village and carved out 259 plots. They were allotted to individua...