Delhi Court September 2004 Judgments

The East India Hotels Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi182; 114(2004)DLT364; 2004(77)DRJ274

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1.The petitioner is the owner of two hotels, the Oberoi and Oberoi Maidens. In both the hotels at the relevant stage of time discotheques were being run under the name and style of `Tabela' and `Sensation' respectively. The question raised in these two writ petitions is about the liability of the petitioner company to pay entertainment tax on the cover charges/fixed fee imposed in respect of the entry into the discotheques.2.The entertainment tax is sought to be charged under the provisions of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as extended to the then union territory of Delhi. The relevant provisions of the said Act are as under :''2 . Definitions : In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:-(1) ''Admission to an entertainment''includes admission in places in which the entertainment is held;(3) ''Entertainment'' includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to whic...

Dharampal and ors. Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT245; 2004(77)DRJ289

J.P. Singh, J.1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by Dharam Pal, Neeraj, Vijay, Sunder and Ajay Kumar against the judgment and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 16.5.2001 the above named appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and vide order of sentence dated 17.5.2001 they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. We have heard Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ravinder Chadha learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record. 3. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that an intimation (DD No. 29A) was received at P.S. Kalyan Puri on the night intervening 15-16.3.1998 from duty constable posted at Swami Dayanand Hospital (SDN Hospital) Shahdara, regarding admiss...

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Abhishek Industries Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR213(Delhi); 114(2004)DLT436; 2004(77)DRJ633

R.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as ''The Act'') read with Section 151 CPC seeking the following reliefs: ''(i) restrain the respondent either itself or through its agents, representatives and employees, from utilizing in any manner whatsoever any or all the materials, plant and machinery, equipment and tools of the petitioner listed in Annexure ''P-4'' and annexure ''P-5'' of the petition and lying at the factory premises of the respondent at Dhaula, Barnala, Punjab and/or removing the same from the said premises or disposing off or alienating the same; (ii) appoint a receiver to take possession and control of all the materials, plant and machinery, equipment and tools of the petitioner listed in Annexure ''P-4'' and Annexure ''P-5'' of the petition, as also the documents/records/software of the petitioner and lying at the factory premises of respondent at Dhaula, Barnala, Punjab with the help of t...

issar Nenu Mal Ajbani @ I.N. Ajbarni Vs. NaraIn Dass P. Godwani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT789; (2005)139PLR14

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2003 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in RCA No.436/2002, whereby the learned Tribunal has reversed the order of the Additional Rent Controller and has allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.2. The brief facts of the case as has been noted by the learned Tribunal are as under :'The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a petition for eviction U/s 14(1)(a) r/w Section 6A and 26 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was preferred by the respondent against the appellant. In the said proceedings the summons were sent to the appellant at the address of the premises in question and also at the address A-6, West End Colony, New Delhi. The said summons were not served upon the appellant. Service was effected by publication in the National Herald dated 26.5.97. Appellant thereafter was proceeded ex parte and ultimately an eviction order dated 7.11....

Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mahesh Chandra, Member: 1. The present complainant has been filed on behalf of Smt. Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust through its Chairman Brig. J.M. Kapoor against Punjab National Bank, F-16, Preet Vihar Branch, New Delhi for deficiency in service by freezing the account of the trust and thereby causing inconvenience and harassment to the trustees. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a trust was created by Shri R.D. Kapoor in the name of his wife vide trust deed dated 2.4.1990. The trust is running a Homeopathic dispensary also. After the death of the author of the trust Shri R.D. Kapoor on 11.11.1993 Brig. J.M. Kapoor was appointed as Chairman vide resolution dated 5.1.1995. The complainant trust opened an account No. 23469 in the O.P. Bank and the account was to be operated by the Chairman Brig. J.M. Kapoor only. However, on 6.2.1998 a letter was delivered to the O.P. Bank signed by two trustees Shri M.L. Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor stating that the mode of operation of...

Bestavision Electronics Ltd. Vs. C.C. and C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC145

1. In this appeal, M/s. Bestavision Electronics Ltd., are challenging the imposition of penalty and redemption fine on them.2. Shri S.D. Gaur, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants manufacture colour television sets; that the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 9.9.98 and observed that they were declaring more than one M.R.P. for each model of their T.V. sets, which was against the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act; that the Officers also noticed that no M.R.P. was printed on the cartons of C.T.V. sets lying in the factory; that the Officers detained 641 C.T.V. sets lying in packed condition in the factory on the ground that these were intended to be removed on lower M.R.P.; that in addition, the Officers also seized 41 V.C.Ps. which were lying in packed condition and were not accounted for in the R.G.I. Register; that the Officers also seized 171 C.T.V. sets of Bestavision brand from the sales depot-cum-godown of the appellants on 9....

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Escorts Jbc Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Delhi)258

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue pertaining to asst. yr. 1996-97.The following grounds of appeal have been preferred which are as follows : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,90,863 on account of development expenses. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 6D after clubbing all the journeys undertaken by the employees together and after excluding the incidental expenses like conveyance, telephone, etc." 2. The first ground is arising out of the action of the CIT(A) in deleting a sum of Rs. 12,90,863 representing development expenses. The impugned amount was claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure in its return of income. The AO has disallowed t-he same and treated it as capital expenditure primarily on the ground of the stand of the Revenue in earlier years. The AO did not accept the plea ...

Vishal Industries Vs. North Delhi Power Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 114(2004)DLT140

ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule.With the consent of Counsels for the parties I propose to dispose of the present petition.The petitioner has approached this Court against the show cause notice issued by the respondent pursuant to an inspection carried out on 23rd August, 2004. Theft bill was raised. A case of theft was also made out against the petitioner and show cause notice was given. Personal hearing was also afforded to him. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondent has not supplied some photographs and the meter data to him. In the reply to show cause notice the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to non-supply of documents. The petitioner states that the documents have still not been supplied to him to enable him to respond to the show cause notice and apprise the respondent of correct position.2. In these circumstances the respondent is directed to supply the necessary material, photographs and data to the petitio...

Smt. Sushila Kumari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT46

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays that demand raised vide letter dated 16.9.2002 be quashed and mandamus be issued to the first respondent to raise the demand for ground rent upon the respective flat owners i.e. respondents 3 to 10, in proportion to the areas owned and occupied by them. Further mandamus is sought that the demand of interest raised in the impugned letter be quashed. Further mandamus is sought that the first respondent be directed to refund or otherwise adjust a sum of Rs.15,70,909/- paid by the husband of the petitioner.2. Writ petition concerns itself with property bearing Municipal No.10-A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi.3. Impugned letter issued by the first respondent to the petitioner reads as under:-' No. L & DO/LI-9/2(3-A)/2002/418 Dated:16.9.2002.To,Smt. Sushila Kumari,Wife of Late Dr. Karni Singh,Executrix & Trustee,Lallgarh Palace,Bikaner-334001.Sub: Premises situated on Plot.No.3 (part), Block No.2 known as 10-A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi.R/Madam,I am di...

Smt. Bashiram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(77)DRJ497

Gita Mittal, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the mother of a deceased soldier late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan seeking quashing of orders dated 28th March, 2002 and 14th March, 2002 passed by the Army Group Insurance Scheme(Respondent no. 5 in the present petition) informing her that the insurance benefits available to her son, the deceased soldier, would be released in favor of his widow in the event that the petitioner was unable to produce any orders in her favor of stay from a court of law.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that the late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was married to one Smt. Murshida Parveen(Respondent No. 6) on 19th June, 2000 as per Muslim law and customs. Late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was enrolled in the Indian Army on the 27th July, 1998 having been allotted service no. 2845517 and was posted with 15 Rajputana Rifles. Late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had proceeded for his leave on the 20th August, 2001. According to the petitioner, the relations of th...