Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Spectrum Power Generation Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC719Tri(Delhi)

1. The first appellant M/s Spectrum Power Generation set up 208 MW power plant with imported equipment near Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh. It awarded an "erection contract" to the second appellant M/s Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd. in December 1994. Pursuant to this contract, the second appellant got the power plant erected and installed through two subcontractor vis-a-vis M/s UB Engineering Ltd. and M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2. In March 2002, Commissioner, Central Excise, Visakhapatnam issued a Show-cause Notice alleging that the setting up of the aforesaid power plant involved manufacture of goods and that central excise duty of abut over Rs. 87 crore was payable by the second appellant (as the manufacturer) and that the first appellant was liable to a penalty.Both the appellants resisted the demands. The primary contention was that setting up of a power plant involved construction of immovable property and immovable property was not liable to central excise, as that tax was...

Everest Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC73

This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.8.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') declining the request of the appellant herein to be impleaded as a party to the O.A. 817/2000 pending before the said DRT. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the 2nd respondent herein, namely, M/s. Everest Woollen Mills, is a defendant before the DRT, which consisted of two partners, namely, respondents 3 and 4 in this appeal. He contends that this partnership continued till 31.3.1991 and on 1.4.1991 the appellant company was inducted as a partner. He also contends that a partnership deed dated 2.4.1991 had also been executed to be effective from 1.4.1991, and that due intimation to this effect was also given to the respondent Bank by letter dated 3.4.1991. The learned Counsel for the appellant also points out that the fact that the appellant had become a partner has also been mentioned by t...

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]128CompCas42(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ616; 2004(29)PTC435(Del)

R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of is No.11847/2003 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is No.302/2004 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, a Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products for the last over 19 years and having even overseas operations is marketing it as products under the trade mark 'Dr. Reddy's'. The plaintiff alleges that a logo representing a man with outstretched arms and word mark 'Dr. Reddy's' was created in April, 2001 which was an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. It was formally assigned to the plaintiff in December, 2002 and as such the plaintiff being the proprietor of the copyright is entitled to exclusive use thereof. The plaintiff has already applied for the registration of the...

Mr. G.S. Vohra Vs. Chairman, Fci and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ57

Anil Kumar, J.1. Pension is not only a compensation for services rendered in the past but it is also a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, thereforee, one is required to fall back on savings. Keeping this in mind the Courts have held time and again and have hoped that pension and other amounts would be paid within a reasonable short time on retirement, leaving the employee to counter penury and economic destitution. 2. The defaults in payment of pension and other retirement benefits, however, continue unabated. The present case is yet another instance where the pension, gratuity and other amounts were not paid in time despite the fact that the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.1982 and payments were made in 1987 after order of dismissal from service was set aside with consequential benefits on 28th January,1985.. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the pe...

Delhi Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Ambica Chaudhary and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)ACC24; 113(2004)DLT393; 2004(76)DRJ410

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 522/2003 is directed against the judgment dated 2nd May, 2003, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the' Tribunal') in Suit No. 848/1996, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realisation.:2: FAO 552/20032. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Tribunal, are as under :'The facts, as borne out from the claim petition, are rather brief. It is stated that, on 3.8.96, at about 7.25 p.m. Ripu Chowdhary was waiting for a bus Along with his cousin when he was hit by a DTC bus number DEP-9214 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. The injured Ripu Chowdhary was taken to Safdarjung hospital where he was declared brought dead. The driver of the bus was arrested. It is further stated that, Ripu Chowdhary at the time of his death, was 16 years of age. He was running a grocery shop and was e...

Mrs. Arifa Nauman Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(76)DRJ537; [2005(104)FLR124]; 2005(3)SLJ11(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. This writ petition has been filed by Ms.Arifa Nauman, who is working with respondent No.3-Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories, as a Stenographer. Petitioner in the prayer made in the writ petition has sought the following reliefs:-'(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 not to give effect to the transfer order dated 1.11.2003, issued to the petitioner as a same is illegal, mala fide, arbitrary, vocative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India.(b) Pass any other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.'3. Notice to show cause was issued and as an interim measure, impugned order dated 1.11.2003 (Annexure P-7), transferring petitioner to Aurangabad was stayed. The impugned order of transfer is assailed by the petitioner as being wh...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Times Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Del)438; [2005]275ITR203(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the question referred to the Court is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 8,64,000 received by the assessed was a capital receipt ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are required to be narrated here. The assessed purchased a building bearing No. 2/3, Salisbury Court, Fleet Street, London, in February, 1947. One Mr. W.H. Martin was a tenant in the said building at the time of purchase and he was the assessed's representative in London. He was paying 25 per month which was being reimbursed by the assessed to Mr, Martin since he was representing the assessed in London. The assessed transferred the property by way of sale on 17th Feb., 1973, to M/s Salisbury Square Investment Trust Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Salisbury'). The sale was subject to the condition that Mr. Martin would continue to occupy the portion which was occupied by him ...

Krishan Gopal Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT387

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner claims to be the co-owner of 4 bids was of land comprised in Khasra No. 1619/893 in the Revenue Estate of Village Madipur, petitioner has 1/3rd share in the said land. Remaining 2/3rd share belongs to sons of late Sh. Rampath and late Sh. Ganpatrai. In other words, share of the petitioner in the land would be 1.33 biswa or say about 66 sq. yards.2. Vide Notification dated 13.11.1959, being No. F-15(III)/59-LSJ 2632 0 bigha 18 bids was of land was notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition in Village Madipur. Declaration under Section 6, vide Notification No. F-4 (30)/63-L and H was issued on 10.6.1963. After issuing notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the Land Acquisition Collector published an award No. 1691 dated 23.3.1964 acquiring most of the notified land. The land in question belonging to the petitioner and the other co-owners was not acquired under the award. Following was observed in th...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors. Vs. Dr. S.K. Nagar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ685

B.A. Khan, J.1. The writ petition challenges the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8th May, 2002, passed in O.A. No. 3429/2003 directing the petitioners to consider respondent's regularisation of the services to the post of Demonstrator(Dental) without insisting on fresh selection through DSSSB provided that his record is good. The facts of the case are as under:-An advertisement was issued on 11th January, 1995, inviting applications for certain posts in the Dentistry Department of Maulana Azad Medical College. One of the posts advertised was of Demonstrator. The advertisement itself said that the post was for short-term contract appointment but was likely to continue. Respondent applied for the post of Demonstrator pursuant to this advertisement. He was issued an offer letter on 13th June, 1995, which said ' on recommendation of Staff Selection Board, the undersigned is directed to offer to Dr. S.K. Nigam, an appointment to the post of Demonstrator (Dental) on a pure...

Pearl Polymers Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by Shri O.P. Nahar, Acting Chairperson. 2. This appeal is filed against adjudication order No. DD(A.A.)/DZ/21/2004 dated 20-1-2004, passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 for contravention of provisions of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973, read with section 68 of FERA, 1973 for the reasons that the appellant after obtained remittance of foreign exchange equivalent to Indian Rs. 72,07,000 failed to submit documentary evidence for the import of goods in India. 3. The impugned order has faulted the appellant merely on the question that amount of remittance stated by the bank does not tally with the amount taken. This discrepancy was explained to the adjudicating autho-rity by stating that usage interest is added to the original received amount. But the appellant was not believed. 4. A letter from Bank of Baroda is produced by learned counsel Shri Mahendra Singh...