Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. G.P. Goyal and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC49

1. The appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-bank") filed the O. A. (initially numbered as O.A. No. 473 of 1996) against the first respondent (the fourth defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-defendant"), the second respondent herein (the first defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") and others for the recovery of Rs. 84,95,730 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT").2. Defendants Nos. 5, 8 and 9 contested the O. A., and the rest of the defendants remained ex parte. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the order dated March 18, 1997, held that the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 84,95,730 from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 with interest and costs. He also held that out of this amount the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 4,15,862.04 from the respondent-defendant with interest ...

Satendra Singh Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)2SOT110(Delhi)

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds, which are as under :- "1. The assessing officer after processing the return of income and issuing intimation under section 143(1)(a) dated 31-1-1994 was legally wrong in serving notice under section 148 dated 9-1-1997 instead of a notice under Section 143(2) to proceed further for passing an assessment order under section 143(3) or 144. The CIT(A) erred in not complying with the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts on the issue and passed the impugned illegal order; 2. The assessee disclosed all the facts of the case fully and truly which were also in the knowledge of the assessing officer on the dale of processing the assessee's return under section 143(1)(a). Issuing of the notice under section 148 by the successor assessing officer was for reviewing the opinion of his predecessor which is not permissible under section 147; 3. The assessing officer violating the provisions of section 147 issu...

Smt. Seema Maheswari Vs. the Director, Director of Education and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT291

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner-Seema Maheshwari, has been working with respondent No.3-School since 29.9.1989. Petitioner holds a Master Degree in Science and B.Ed. She is presently working as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). Some time in the month of January, 2003, upon the retirement of the HOD (Physics), a vacancy arose for the post of PGT (Physics).3. Respondent Nos.2-3 thereupon appointed a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to over see the selection of the candidates from among the teachers working in the School. The Departmental Promotion Committee comprised the Chairman Managing Committee, Principal AFGJI, Principal AFBBS, Principal TAFS and Assistant Director Education Schools of the Air Force Schools. The Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting of 28.1.2003, laid down the criteria for consideration of the candidates for the post of PGT in Physics. The essential qualification was Master...

Ms. Lovneet Kaur and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2004)BC607; 114(2004)DLT138; (2005)139PLR23

ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Rule. Heard for disposal.2. Petitioners were the highest bidder at an open auction conducted on 23.8.2003. Bid for Unit 11, G-H-14/G-17, Paschim Puri Site II of the petitioners was the highest. The bid was in the sum of Rs. 8,75,500/-.3. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, 25% of the bid amount was to be deposited at the fall of the hammer. Remaining 75% had to be paid within 30 days of receipt of bid confirmation.4. Petitioners were, thus, required to pay Rs. 2,18,875/- on 23.10.2003 at the fall of the hammer. Unfortunately, petitioners who had a weak mathematics, while working out simple arithmetic, calculated the amount to be paid at Rs. 2,18,750/-. They paid the same on 23.10.2003.5. Negligent mistake committed by the petitioners resulted in the petitioners depositing the requisite amount less by Rs. 125/-.6. Weak mathematic proved fatal for the petitioners. DDA rejected the bid holding that since sum of Rs. 125/- was short deposited, there ...

Director of Income Tax Vs. Dumez-sogea-borie-sae

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Del)543

B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal was placed before the Court for the first time on 9th July, 2003, and the Court issued notice, returnable on 23rd Oct., 2003. On that date, Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya requested the Court that as he has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent time may be granted and the matter was adjourned to 12th Jan., 2004. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Even today, when the matter was called out, a request was made for time. In this matter, the Tribunal recalled the entire order passed by it earlier and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case is covered by the judgment of this Court and the following question of law is required to be answered by the Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the order of an application under Section 254(2) and in passing the impugned order ?'2. The decision is reported in the case of CIT v. Vichitra Construction ...

Texstyles and ors. Vs. Kiran Overseas Export Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi162

ORDER1. The question to be decided is whether the defendant has successfully disclosed a case for the exercise in its favor of the discretion possessed by this Court in its favor under Order 8, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended with effect from 1 -7-2002, and in particular whether any discretion remains reposed with the Court after the expiry of ninety days from the date of service of summons on the defendant. The relevant provisions prior and post the amendment read as follows :OldPresentR.l. Written statement. (1) The defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit. present a written statement of his defense. 2. Save as otherwise provided in R. 8-A, where the defendant relies on any document (whether or not in his possession or power) in support of his defense or claim for setoff or counterclaim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall, (a) if a written statement is presented, annex the list 'to the written statement...

Director of It Vs. Domez-sogea-borie-sae

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN309(Delhi)

B.C. Patel, C.J.This appeal was placed before the court for the first time on 9-7-2003, and the court issued notice, returnable on 23-10-2003. On that date, Mr. S.K. Bhattadharya requested the court that as he has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent time may be granted -and the matter was adjourned to 12-1-2004. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Even today, when the matter was called out, a request was made for time. In this matter, the Tribunal recalled the entire order passed by it earlier and the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case is covered by the judgment of this court and the following question of law is required to be answered by the court'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the order of an application under section 254(2) and in passing the impugned order ?'2. The decision is reported in the case of CIT v. Vichitra Construction (P) Ltd. : [2004]269I...

Khanna Automobiles Vs. H.S. Rekhi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The respondent, who is practising Advocate, purchased a Puch Auto Cycle (Regn. No. DL -3SD/8605) from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 13,733/- on 30.9.1992. From day one it started giving trouble not only in respect of its functioning but also in respect of its mileage. The appellant represented that the vehicle will give 91 kms. per litre whereas it hardly gave 50 kms. per litre. He took the vehicle to the appellant on several occasions for rectification of the defects in gearbox, clutch, speedo meter, shockers and accelerator, which were not functioning smoothly and giving him trouble again and again. Vide impugned order dated 31.10.1995 the District Forum directed the appellant to take back the vehicle and pay its price within one month besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. Admittedly the vehicle in question is still in possession of the respondent and it appears that...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhushan Lal Khurana

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 31.10.1996 passed by the District Forum whereby the following directions were issued on account of its failure to give possession letter as well as the possession as per agreed terms: 1. Pay interest on a sum of Rs. 6,56,667/- @ 18% p.a. for 70 days and further interest on the sum so payable @ 18% p.a. upto the date of payment. 2. Pay interest on the sum of Rs. 15,000/- @ 7% p.a. from 12.2.1985 to 11.11.1992 and @ 18% p.a. thereafter up to the date of payment. 3. Issue certificate in respect of the retention money or refund the same with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25.1.1993 in the event of the Income Tax Department deciding the matter in favour of the O.P. 4. Refund Rs. 30,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25.1.1993. 5. Pay Rs. 2,965/- towards the cost of repairs of floor. 6. Pay damages for harassment and costs of these proceedings assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. 7. Pay cost aggregating to Rs. 300/- awarded for adj...

Malwa Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC994Tri(Delhi)

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed by the appellants against the common impugned order-in-appeal dated 10.1.2004 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the orders-in-original of the adjudicating authority who allowed the refund/rebate of the duty to the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 100% cotton yarn and cotton denim fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the CETA. They exported 100% cotton denim fabrics on payment of duty during the period in question (April & May 2001). They had been also availing facility of CENVAT credit under Rule 57-AB and maintained separate account of the credit in the statutory record. They are the time of export of the goods, paid the Additional Excise Duty (AED) from the CENVAT credit register (RG-23A, Part-II). They submitted their claims for the rebate /refund of the duty paid by them on the exported goods. The adjudicating authority allowed the claim through fo...