Delhi Court May 2004 Judgments

S.N. Kanchhal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complaint has been filed by Mr. S.N. Kanchhal against Delhi Development Authority under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are as follows: 2. The complainant applied for allotment of a flat under 5th Self Financing Registration Scheme, 1982, Category II floated by the O.P.-D.D.A. on 9.8.1982. It was assured that the complainant would be allotted a flat within 3-4 years and the cost of the flat will be around Rs. 3,00,000/-. Subsequently, on the basis of draw held on 31.12.1987, the complainant was allotted a flat in category III, Ground Floor, Block B, Pocket 10, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and the estimated cost of the flat was disclosed as Rs. 3,39,600/-. The said money was to be paid in four instalments vide the letter dated 8.5.1988. It was also mentioned that the estimated cost of the flat is provisional and is subject to revision and also that normally it takes...

Albert David Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC435

1. The question to be considered in this case is whether the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt.Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) = 2000 (40) RLT 131 (S.C)] which arose in application under Rule 11 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules (present Section 11B) shall be applied to an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. A similar issue was considered by us in our Final Order No. 423/2004-NB(A), dated 17-5-2004, 2. In the above mentioned case the appellant submitted that when contentions are raised by the assessee and an adjudication order is issued it will not be open for the assessee to challenge the adjudication order on the Bill of Entry merely by filing an application of refund. The position will be different when there is no Lis between the parties and it was only a mere assessment on the Bill of Entry. In the facts of the case it was submitted that there was a Lis between the parties. Therefore, we held that the a...

Pratappur Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC814Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Pratappur Sugar Industries Ltd., is whether the amount of excise duty collected by them from their customers is liable to be recovered from them under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act.2. Sh. S.P. Ojha, learned Consultant, submitted that the Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies, Govt. of India, announced incentive scheme for new sugar factories and extension projects which, inter alia, provide concenssion to pay excise duty in respect of free sale sugar at the rate applicable to levy sugar and to retain the difference in excise duty; that the Revenue has directed them to deposit excise duty collected by them from their customers under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act; that Notification Nos. 130/83 and 131/83, both dated 27.4.1983, providing concessional rate of duty, were issued in pursurance to the said incentive scheme and, therefore, incentive scheme and provisions of the Notification are to be read in ...

Oswal Chemicals and Fertilizers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC69

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati dated 29-9-2003 rejecting the claim for refund made by the appellant.2. Ammonia manufactured by the appellant is captively consumed by it in the manufacture of urea. Naphtha required for the purpose of manufacturing urea is procured by the appellant from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (BPCL). Such procurement was under nil/concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and its successor Notification No. 8/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996. The appellant had made application on 12-1-1996 for registration under Rule 192 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of obtaining Naphtha under concessional rate of duty. On 20-2-1996 the Superintendent of Shahjahanpur was informed about the appellant receiving duty paid Naphtha w.e.f. 20-2-1996 for manufacture of fertilizer. By order dated 8-/- 1997 the appellant's application was rejected...

Mrs. Shagufta Zahid and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC33

1. Respondent-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-Bank") has obtained the final order dated 27th December, 2001 against the appellants herein (as defendant Nos. 2 to 4, hereinafter referred to as "appellants-defendants") and M/s. Hibba Exports, (as 1st defendant) for a sum of Rs. 10,32,972/- with interest and cost.2. The appellants-defendants filed an application under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "DRT"), requesting the Recovery Officer to postpone the sale of the property for about two months to enable the certificate debtors to raise the balance of the amount under the Certificate.3. The appellants-defendants urged in that application that they have been served with the notice for drawing up the proclamation for sale and settling the terms of the sale of the property, whereas, they have given a proposal to the responden...

Shri Trilok Narayan Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 111(2004)DLT769; 2004(75)DRJ287

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-acceptance of his M.Phil work submitted by the petitioner to the respondent University. The petitioner was enrolled with the respondent University in 1996 for an integrated course under the guidance of respondent No. 3 and submitted his dissertation on 22.07.1998. The petitioner, however, received information only after about two years in July 2000 about the rejection of his dissertation and for the petitioner to vacate the hostel accommodation.2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay on the part of the respondent in analyzing dissertation of the petitioner and that the dissertation of the petitioner could not have been referred to the external examiner as was sought to be done. In any case the petitioner is entitled to acceptance of dissertation as per rules. 3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy, it is necessary to refer to the Ordinance relating to the award of the ...

Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT125

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This criminal writ petition has been filed with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to quash orders dated 22.9.2003 and 25.9.2003 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, and stay of further proceedings in FIR No. 33/2003 pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of India who was extradited from the Republic of Singapore in the year 1995. He has been in judicial custody. A case under Sections 364-A, 387 and 120B, IPC was registered against him vide FIR No. 33/2003 on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sheetal P. Singh, son of Sh. Lalta Prasad Singh, resident of B-38, Hill View Apartments, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to the effect that on 15.4.2003 he received extortion threat from underworld gangster Om Prakash Srivastava @ Babloo Srivastava and his associates. Shri Sheetal Singh is into the business of manufacturing and marketing of High Security Vehicle Registrati...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)172; [2005]274ITR131(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order whereby the application of the assessed for recalling an order passed ex parte, was allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 10th Sept., 2003 in MA No. 99/Del/2003 in ITA No. 2189/Del/1997 for the asst. yr. 1993-94.2. The assessed made out a case before the Tribunal, inter alia, requesting to recall the order on the ground that the said order was ex parte contending that the assessed could not remain present narrating grounds which were accepted by the Tribunal.3. Learned counsel for Revenue raised a question that the Tribunal has no power to review the entire order by placing reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in J.N. Sahni v. ITAT and Ors. : [2002]257ITR16(Delhi) wherein the Division Bench considered the decision of CIT v. Ramesh Chand Modi and while disagreeing observed as under:'The Tribunal has merely the power to amend its ord...

Deepak Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT937

D.K. Jain, J.1. Writ Petition No. 4361/1998 entitled 'Deepak Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., was heard by a Division Bench of this Court and was allowed vide judgment dated 24th July, 2001. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have challenged a Notification No. F. 7(7)/97/L&B;/LA/4252 dated 24th June, 1998 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act'). By the impugned Notification large tracts of land, including the land of the said petitioners falling in village Samalkha within the National Capital Territory of Delhi were being compulsorily acquired. Urgency provision contained in Section 17 of the Act was invoked and provisions of Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with. By a detailed judgment, the Division Bench held that there was non-application of mind on the part of the respondents to show urgency warranting invoking urgency provision and dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. It was ...

St. Thomas Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 112(2004)DLT795; 2004(76)DRJ54

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With consent of Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner herein claims to be a registered educational society which was allotted land measuring about 4980 sq. yds. bearing Khasra Nos. 420 and 532 situated at village Neb Sarai, New Delhi by respondent No. 4 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner's case is that they had been running a educational institution in the said premises and after inspection by CBSE and Directorate of Education-respondent No. 2, the school was recognised and affiliated by respondent No. 2 and CBSE and was also upgraded. The petitioner asserts that it was complying with all the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and all of a sudden on 29.12.2000, the said lease was cancelled without issuing any show cause notice. It is also stated that apart from the petitioner not having been issued any show cause notice, the impugned order did not also refer to any reason of any kind f...