Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Rahul Kanwal and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT296

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioners herein seek quashing of the F.I.R. and all further proceedings initiated against them in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 194/2003 dated 14th August, 2003, registered at Police Station, Parliament Street, New Delhi. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against petitioners but the allegations against them are in respect of an offence under Section 120B I. P.C. only on the ground that they entered into a conspiracy for the commission of offences under Sections 447 and 448 I.P.C. The petitioners are not challenged or being prosecuted for substantive offences under Section 447 or Section 448 I.P.C. Section 196(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable w...

Nafa Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT593; 2006(1)SLJ468(Delhi)

Gita Mittal, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has claimed entitlement to disability pension on the ground of his having been invalidated out of military service in low medical category. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was enrolled in Rajputana Rifles of the Indian Army on 16th December, 1962. It is claimed that finding difficulty with his vision he was medically examined and was invalidated from the Indian Army on 1st March, 1969. It is further claimed that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension in terms of Army Pension Regulations Part-I, 1961 (Appendix-II) which has been illegally denied to him. The petitioner claims to have served a legal notice dated 22nd November, 1999 claiming entitlement to the disability pension which has not been granted. Hence the present writ petition.2. In their reply, the respondents have not disputed the factual matrix. However whil...

Union of India Vs. K.C. Anand

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by District Forum-I, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1016/1996 awarding compensation of Rs. 6,000/- to the respondent on account of deficiency in service as the appellant was held up for 5 days in the train which normally used to take 50 hours from the place of its departure to its destination. The appellant assails this order on the ground that the time of 5 days taken by the train was not on account of deficiency in service or due to inefficiency of the staff of the railways but was because of heavy storms paralysing the communication system. 2. Be that as it may it is difficult to accept that due to heavy storm a person travelling in the train would be held up for 5 days. Even if it is assumed that communication system collapsed due to heavy storms still non-rectification of the system itself comes within the ambit of the deficiency in service as in such eventualities the ...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Sukhbir Singh Bahl

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. These are two cross appeals preferred against the single order dated 3.2.2000 passed by District Forum. One is filed by the appellant Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and the other is filed by Mr. Sukhbir Singh Bahl and are being disposed of by this single order. 2. The appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 3.2.2000 passed by District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per day for loss of earning during the period of 107 days in which the telephone of the respondent remained out of order besides giving rebate in rental for the said period and cost of litigation. Admittedly the telephone of the respondent remained out of order for 107 days, though the respondent also sought relief to way of filing civil suit for referring the matter of arbitration under Section 7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The Counsel for the appellant states that complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum in view of civil suit filed by the res...

Aircell Digilink India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC48

1. In this appeal, the appellants have made challenge to the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the service tax of Rs. 3,28,250/- on them with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Act.3. The service tax demand has been confirmed against the appellants for having not paid the service tax in respect of the said sale to their subscribers. Whereas the appellants have disputed this demand being not taxable. Therefore, the issue involved is as to whether sale of SIM Card by the appellants, who are engaged in providing cellular telephone service, to the subscribers, falls within the definition of 'taxable service' or not. This issue already stands decided against the appellants in case of Escotal Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by holding that transaction of selling the SIM card to the subscriber is a part of service rendered by service provider to the subscriber and as such squarely f...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ilpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT454TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty demand and penalty as confirmed by the adjudicating authority against the respondent, by holding the same to be time-barred.3. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pulsator during the period in question (April, 1998 to March, 2001). They received item "Bush" from M/s. Electrolux Voltas Ltd. under Rule 57F(4) challans and inserted the same into their product "Pulsator", which they cleared on payment of duty. But while determining the assessable value of their product Pulsator, they did not include the value of the bush- On that account, the duty demand of Rs. 73,042/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and of Rs. 10,000/- under erstwhile Rule 173Q, was confirmed against them by the adjudicating authority after serving them with a show cause notice, through order-in-original.4. ...

Pragati Silicones Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC486Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. Pragati Silicones Ltd., have challenged confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalty on them by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal No. 26/04 dated 8.1.2004.2. Sh. R.C. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants, besides manufacturing motor vehicle parts, also undertake the job work of electro-plating; that they received the duty-paid plastic moulding for electroplating from certain component suppliers under the job work challans under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (Earlier Rule 57F(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944); that though they were not required to pay any Central Excise duty on the goods cleared after doing the job work, they were clearing the electroplating mouldings after payment of Central Excise duty only on job charges; that now the demand of duty has been confirmed and penalty has been imposed on them on the ground that the value of the plastic components should have been included in the assessabl...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Punjab Wads (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT310TriDel

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise.The respondents declared the value of imported capital goods as 85000 pounds. The goods were warehoused and the register [Capital Goods In-Bond Register] also, shows the value of goods as declared by the respondent. The respondents asked for debonding of the capital goods.The adjudicating authority after taking into consideration the value of the goods as 147650 pound disallowed the depreciation. The respondent filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the depreciation on the value declared by the respondent in the bill of entry.4. The Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that value of the imported goods imported by the respondent is 147650 pounds and not 85000 pound.5. We have seen the copy of bill of entry where the value is shown as 85000 pound and this value was also mentioned in the In-Bond Register but was cut and made to as 147650 pound in the B.E. The invo...

Uttranchal Finance Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Indore and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC56

1. First respondent-State Bank of Indore (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 648/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') against appellant-Uttranchal Finance Ltd. (3rd defendant in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and three others for the recovery of Rs. 49,18,411.69 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 4.4.2002 against all the defendants, including the appellant-defendant, directing them to pay the said amount jointly and severally.2. The appellant-defendant filed a Miscellaneous Application dated 20.5.2002 for setting aside the ex parte final order against it. The said application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 18.7.2002 observing that the appellant-defendant has been served at its Corporate Office at East of Kailash, New Delhi, that the appellant-defendant has not p...

Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly Vs. State Bank of Indore and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC181

1. First respondent-State Bank of Indore (hereinafer referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 648/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') against appellant-Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly (4th defendant in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant- defendant') and three others for the recovery of Rs. 49, 18, 411.69 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 4.4.2002 against all the defendants, including the appellant-defendant, directing them to pay the said amount jointly and severally.2. The appellant-defendant filed a Miscellaneous Application dated 20.5.2002 for setting aside the ex parte final order against him. The said application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 18.7.2002 observing that the show- cause notice in the O.A. was sent to the appellant-defendant to his last known address available with the respondent-Ba...