Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

T. Gurudeo Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(79)DRJ552

Manju Goel, J.1. Shri T.P. Guravaiah, father of juvenile T. Gurudeo, invokes the provisions of Section 397/401/482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short `Juvenile Act') seeking grant of bail to the juvenile, T. Gurudeo. The offence alleged against the juvenile is of attempt to murder of one child called Abhishek. There are allegations that the juvenile had sodamised two children called Abhay & Abhishek and the juvenile became violent when there were protest from the child victim. The trial court obtained the social investigation report which was submitted by one Shri Anil Kumar of the Probation Department. A copy of the social investigation report has been placed on record. As per the report the father of the juvenile is a Central Government employee working as LDC in the Income Tax Department. No member of the family had any record of delinquency. The father of the juvenile claimed to have been taking care of the juv...

Mr. M.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT628; 2005(80)DRJ203; 2006(2)SLJ255(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th July, 2004. Contention of the petitioner before us is that in 1999, a decision was taken by the respondent to hold a joint enquiry against the petitioner as well as two Inspectors and once such a decision was taken by the respondent the enquiry against the petitioner ought to have been joint with two Inspectors. It was contended that enquiry against petitioner alone cannot be conducted. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the advice of the CVC was for holding a joint enquiry and that advice under Article 317 of the Constitution is binding on the respondent. Lastly, it was submitted before us that the petitioner was called as a witness against the enquiry conducted against two Inspectors. thereforee, he will be prejudiced in his defense and it would be contrary to the rules of the respondent where co accused cann...

Shri Rajesh Khanna Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR247(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present order disposes of IA. No. 9160/01 filed by respondents 1 to 3, being objections under Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to the award dated 29.11.2000/15.12.2000 pronounced by Shri S.S. Aggarwal, Sole Arbitrator appointed between the parties. For clarity, it may be noted that the award is dated 29.11.2000. 15.12.2000 is the date on which the learned arbitrator published the award..2. Objections have been filed by the respondents. Petitioner prays that award be made rule of the Court and decree be drawn accordingly.3. Dispute between the parties pertained to the work 'lining of supplementary drain including construction of connate from RD 20850 m to 20950 m of supplementary drain' under agreement No. EE/SDD-III/89-90/6 dated 22.8.1989.4. Petitioner had 7 claims against the respondents. 8th claim being for interest. Said claims were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S.S. Aggarwal. Claim No. 2 had 18 sub-heads. Award of the learned arbitr...

J.R. Sharma Overseas Ltd. Vs. Abner Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC512; 117(2005)DLT405; 2005(80)DRJ51; (2005)140PLR40

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The present order disposes of the 3 captioned interim applications, one filed by the defendant and the other two filed by the plaintiff. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff invoking the provisions of Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure. By and under is No. 2268/1995, defendant prays for leave of this court to defend the suit. By and under is Nos. 3773/1995 and 3805/1997, plaintiff prays for a decree on admission.2. Suit is based on a written acknowledgment of the defendant dated 23.6.94. The same reads as under:-'JR Sharma Overseas P LtdDarya GanjNew Delhi Kind Attn: Mr. Gopal SharmaDear Sir,This is with reference to the discussion the undersigned had with you.We had received advance of Rs. 21 lacs from you for execution of order of Ampicillin Trihydrate. The advance was utilised by us to augment the capacity of our plant according to your needs.Thereafter, we understand that you could not lift the material due to lack of orders. However, we acknowledge...

Fairbanks Morse India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Fairbanks Morse (India) Ltd. is that whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 236/86 CE dated 3-4-1986 is available in respect of Column and Shaft Assembly and Discharge Head Assembly manufactured by them.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao learned Advocate, mentioned that the appellants manufacture vertical turbine pumps which mainly consist of bowl assembly, column and shaft assembly and discharge head assembly; that all the three items put together comprises of the power driven pumps in respect of which the benefit of exemption was availed of by them from time to time; that the proceedings were initiated by the Department by issuing various show cause notices proposing to demand duty on the column and shaft assembly and discharge head assembly on the ground that they are accessories of the power driven pump and hence not eligible for the exemption; that the show cause notices had been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner ...

Premium Packaging (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT64TriDel

1. The applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 48 days. The applicant made a request to decide the application on merit.The only ground taken in the application is that the relevant papers are misplaced. The provisions of Section 35B provides that the Tribunal can condone the delay in filing the appeal if it is satisfied that there were sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the period of limitation.2. The mere fact is that the relevant papers were misplaced, is not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the C.O.D. application is dismissed.Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed....

Orient Paper Mills Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC428

1. Heard both sides. In this case the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods in respect of Pressure Transmitter is denied to the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that these capital goods are entitled for the benefit of credit.2. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the statement showing the detailed use of the pressure transmitter, it is mentioned that it is classifiable under Heading 9026/9033 and it is specifically mentioned that it is used as spare parts of Electrical Panels to control the current. Heading 9026 of Tariff covers the instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking the flow of liquids or gases, therefore, this instrument is not to control the voltage of current.3. In this case the appellants are claiming the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Pressure Transmitter classifiable under Heading 90.26/90.33 of Central Excise Tariff. Heading 90.26 or 90.33 of Central Excise Tariff is not covered under the definition of capital goods as provide...

Jai Ambey Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT306TriDel

1. In this appeal, the issue relates to the denial of Deemed Modvat credit to the appellants in terms of Notification No. 58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-1997.2. The appellants had purchased duty-paid inputs from M/s. Prince Agro & Allied Industries and M/s. Sahara Steel Rolling Mills.3. We find that the invoices issued by M/s. Prince Agro & Allied Industries contained the declarations, goods cleared under Rule 96ZP.This declaration, in our view, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the above said Notification, in view of the Tribunal's judgment in case of Shree Ambica Steel Industries vide Final Order dated 21-9-2004. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying Modvat credit on the inputs received from the above said manufacturer, cannot be sustained.4. The Deemed Credit on the inputs received by the appellants from M/s.Sahara Steel Rolling Mills has been denied on the ground that interest had not been paid by the manufacturer on the delayed payment of ...

Biswanath Prasad and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 12,45,0937- and penalty of the equal amount. The applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-.2. In this case the service tax is demanded on the ground that the applicants are Clearing and Forwarding Agents to Raymond Ltd. The contention of the appellant is that they are only 'Commission Agents' as per their agreement and they are only selling the goods on Commission basis and they are not covered under the definition of C & F Agents. The applicant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Generics v. CCE, Bangalore . Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the above mentioned decision as the appellants are only selling agent, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeals. The pre-deposit of remaining amount of service tax and penalty is waived. Adjourned to 30-5-2005 for arguments. Order Dasti....

Uma Shankar Verma, Sharwan Kumar Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC294

1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Original dated 6.9.2003 vide which the Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authority had ordered the confiscation, of the gold T.T. bars and imposed penalties as detailed therein on the appellants.2. On 1.12.92, Shri Sharwan Kumar Singh, Appellant No. 2 was intercepted at Platform No. 9 of Howrah Railway Station, Calcutta, when he arrived there by Rajdhani Express. On conducting his personal search, 70 pieces of Gold T.T. Bars of foreign origin were recovered from the pocket of his jacket which he was wearing at that time. He produced one Challan dated 30.11.98 and letter of even date 30.11.98, issued by M/s. Ballaji Bullion Company, Delhi. His statement was recorded wherein he has disclosed that he had been working as an employee in M/s. Balaji Bullion Company, Delhi for the last two years and Shri Uma Shankar Verma, Appellant No. 1, Proprietor of that Company, delivered him these Gold T.T. Bars for del...