Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Subhash Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT98
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No. 3/2002, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the judgment dated 22.1.2002 of the Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner for violation of Sections 2(ia), (a), (c), (j), (m) read with Section 16(1), (1A) and Section 7 of the PFA Act and vide separate order sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondent I have gone through the record of the case as also the judgment under challenge. Learned Counsel states that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned Counsel that although minimum sentence is pre...
Raj Kumar Kapoor Vs. D.C. Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT68
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31st July, 2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge in CC No. 327/2003, whereby the learned Judge while holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.2. Counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only to the question of sentence. He submits that the petitioner has already undergone substantive portion of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him and now he is undergoing sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine. He further submits that the trial Court could not have directed the sentence of imprisonment in. default of payment of fine to be six months since the maximum awardable sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is one year and of which only one-fourth could be awarded as se...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mitsui and Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)38; [2005]272ITR545(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal, inter alia, agitating that the order made bythe Tribunal is perverse. The Division Bench while admitting the matter on 16th May,2001 framed the question as under:'Whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the IT Act, 1961?'2. It is required to be noted that the matter relates to the financial years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, for which separate appealswere filed before the Tribunal and surprisingly, only one composite appeal ispreferred here. The Revenue ought to have preferred separate appeals. Theoffice (Registry) is directed to treat this matter for the financial year 1989-90and for the other financial years, to give separate numbers for each appeal TheRevenue is directed to pay the amount of Court fees which shall be depositedwithin a period of 15 days from today.3. With a view to see that there is no delay, we are disposing of the matter bythis common jud...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ram Memorial Foundation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]269ITR35(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The following two questions have been raised in I. T. R. No. 396 of 1985 which are as under :'1. Whether the assessed institution could be said to have applied (within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act) to its specified charitable purposes the entire amount of Rs. 12 lakhs each gifted by the assessed to two donee trusts with the specific direction that in each donee's case Rs. 8 lakhs was to form part of the corpus of the respective donees trust ?2. Whether the assessed-trust could be held to have lent the sum of Rs. 77,000 to the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. without adequate security within the meaning of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act and hence the interest income of Rs. 5,200 wherefrom was rightly brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. In I. T. R, No. 193 of 1985, the following question is raised :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see-trust could be held to have lent...
Cit Vs. Shri Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: [2004]141TAXMAN57(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.In these three references, an identical question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court. The question reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no capital gain was assessable on the ground that the agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat belonging to the assessed did not fall within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 19612. It may be noted that the Tribunal considered the decision in the case of Surjan Singh of Nangal Dewat and rendered the decision. Against the decision of the Tribunal, the revenue approached this court and the case in CIT v. Surjan Singh (2003) 260 ITR 351 . The question raised in the aforesaid appeal reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital gains arising on transfer of agricultural lands in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi, is ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhandari Foils
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT185TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the officers of Central Excise department visited the factory of the appellant and it was found that certain finished products were not accounted for in their RG-1 record. The goods were seized and adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the same on payment of redemption fine. A personal penalty was also imposed on the appellant.3. On appeal filed by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation of the goods on the ground that the goods which were found in excess than the stock register lying in the factory were neither fully manufactured nor in packed condition.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods found in excess to their RG-1 record are liable to confiscation.5. I find that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding of fact that the goods were not reached at the finished stage.T...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raymond Ltd. (Cement Div.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT492TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by Revenue the issue involved is whether duty of Excise is demandable from M/s. Raymond Ltd. for production of proof of export beyond the period of 6 months.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents. In fact the notice sent to them by the Registry of the Tribunal has been received back from the postal authorities with the remark 'Refused to accept'. We, therefore, heard Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR and perused the records. The learned SDR submitted that show cause notices were issued to the Respondents as they had failed to produce proof of export within 6 months as stipulated under Notification No. 48/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994 in respect of export of cement to Bangladesh under bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the Respondents had applied for permission for extended period of export after the expiry of the specified period of 6 months; that however, the permission of extension was granted a...
M.K. Laminates Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC353
1. In this appeal, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeals against the Order-in-Original, as time barred.2. The learned Counsel has contended that appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original was within time as the copy of the said order was received by them only on 15.7.2003 while the appeal was filed by them on 2.9.2003 and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected their appeal on the question of limitation.3. On the other hand, the SDR has reiterated the correctness of the order.4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the records shows that the Order-in-original was passed against the appellants, by the adjudicating authority who confirmed the seizure of the goods found lying in their factory and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for getting the same redeemed and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on them. The ...
Steel Shape India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT87TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Steel Shape India Ltd. is whether they are eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 38/97-C.E., dated 27-6-1997 in respect of their new product w.e.f, December, 1997.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the appellants, nor was there any request for adjournment of the matter. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass we heard Mrs. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, and perused the records for disposing of the appeal. We observe that the appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997 in respect of excisable goods manufactured by them; that after the issuance of Notification No.38/97-C.E., dated 27-6-97 they opted for the same in respect of their new product w.e.f. December, 1997; that the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the benefit of both the notifications cannot be availed of simultaneously. The contention of the appellants i...
Mahavir Singh Narwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT550; 2004(74)DRJ661; [2004(102)FLR330]; 2005(1)SLJ133(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alias praying that the respondent be directed to grant the disability pension from the day he was discharged from service on 4th June, 1979.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was enrolled in the Indian Army in the Jat Regiment on 31st December, 1966. The petitioner became a victim of duodenal ulcers due to the stress and strain of military service and was placed in temporary low medical category CEE for six months. In view of the said ailment the petitioner applied for discharge from the army on compassionate grounds on 19th February, 1979 after completion of 12 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11th April, 1979 the petitioner was brought before the Release Medical Board . The Medical Board after examining him down graded to medical category CEE (physical) permanent. It also recommended that the disability was 30% aggravated by stress of military service. It further opined that...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »