Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Rajbir Singh Solanki Vs. Airport Director, International Airport Autho ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT452; 2006(1)SLJ179(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide letter of appointment dated 2.6.1986 issued under the signatures of Sh. S.K. Kashyap, Director (Personnel), petitioner was appointed as Fire Operator under the respondent. The appointment letter records that Sh. S.K. Kashyap has signed the same on behalf of the General Manager of the respondent. Petitioner was posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.2. Respondent alleged that on 6.7.1991 at 16.15 Hrs., petitioner accompanied by about 15 persons stormed into the office of Sh. R.K. Kapoor, E.E(E), IGI Airport. They asked Shri Karnail Singh, J.E(E) to move out and thereafter ransacked the office of Shri R.K. Kapoor. The group manhandled Shri R.K. Kapoor. Petitioner inflicted blows on Shri R.K. Kapoor. Shri Parashar, A.E(E) who had gone to the office of Shri R.K. Kapoor to meet him was prevented by the petitioner from entering the office of Shri R.K. Kapoor. Petitioner was alleged to have pushed Sh. Parashar and even attempted to slap him in hi...

Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT344; 2005(79)DRJ257

R.C. Chopra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 16.8.2000 by which the appellants were convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 19.8.2000 by which they were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was directed to undergo further SI for three months. Learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed this appeal on merits but has confined his prayer to convert the offence from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 324/34 IPC and thereafter grant benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants inasmuch as appellants No. 1 and 2 are Government servants and appellant No. 4 is more than 70 years of age. Appellant No. 3 Jai Kishan has expired during the pendency of the appeal.I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. I have gone through the records.The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly sta...

Vishal Yadav Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 116(2005)DLT341; 2005(79)DRJ254

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 192/2002 under Sections 302/201/364 IPC, registered at PS Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. He is, presently, facing trial at Delhi. He seeks his release on bail primarily in view of his confinement in jail for the last about 2-1/2 years. Earlier, the petitioner had unsuccessfully pleaded for bail, which was, declined by this Court by an order dated 14.10.2003.2. The petitioner is being connected with the abduction and murder of one Nitish Katara on the basis of last seen evidence and recovery of a wrist watch from his possession belonging to the deceased. Till date, thirty eight witnesses have been examined. On earlier occasion when the first application was considered and disposed of by order dated 14.10.1003, thirty four witnesses and a court witness had been examined. It was noted that out of them, many had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Ms.Bharti Yadav, cousin sister of accused-petitioner, is one o...

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi Dalmia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Del)587

1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dt. 16th April, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, New Delhi (for short Tribunal). The appeals decided by the Tribunal pertain to as many as eight assessment years. In respect of some of these assessment years, the Revenue had filed appeals in this Court being WTA Nos. 12-15 of 2004 but a Division Bench, simply holding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeals, dismissed them all on 22nd Nov., 2004. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench, but proceed to give reasons for the same.2. For the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75, the market value of property bearing No. 4, Tilak Marg, had been determined by the Tribunal in its order dt. 29th May, 1982, at Rs. 4,49,000 following the rent capitalisation method.For the eight assessment years in question, the market value of the same property was determined by the CWT(A) at Rs. 6,78,014 based on the valuation report of the District Valuation Off...

Cwt Vs. Smt. Saraswati Devi Dalmia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN782(Delhi)

Madan B. LokurThe Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 16th April 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench E, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ITAT). The appeals decided by the ITAT pertain to as many as eight assessment years. In respect of some of these assessment years, the revenue had filed appeals in this court being WTA Nos.12-15/2004 but a Division Bench, simply holding that no substantial question of law arises in the appeals, dismissed them all on 22-11-2004. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench, but proceed to give reasons for the same.For the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75, the market value of property bearing No. 4, Tilak Marg had been determined by the ITAT in its order dated 29-5- 1982 at Rs. 4,49,000 following the rent capitalization method.For the eight assessment years in question, the market value of the same property was determined by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) at Rs. 6,78,014 based on the valuation ...

Vijay Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant was declared successful for allotment of a flat, category MIG in Sector VII, Pkt. D-X-80, Rohini, Delhi, at a disposal cost of flat of Rs. 2,01,500/-. After depositing a sum of Rs. 35,741-97 p, with the O.P. on 15.5.1990, as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter and submitting all the documents required for confirmation of allotment, he went to the site in order to get the possession of the flat but to his surprise he found that the said flat was already in possession of some other person. However, after waiting for about 16 months he was again declared successful for allotment of flat No. 40, Block A, Pkt. 4, Sector 18, 3rd Floor, Rohini, Delhi at a disposal cost of Rs. 2,86,100/- in place of previous allotment. 2. He has now through this complaint sought following reliefs on account of negligence, carelessness, mal-practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. (1) Rs. 17,097-50 p on account of additional demand in new all...

Cooline Manufacturers P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC360

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Cooline Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. is whether Pipe Sections and Thermo Ceil manufactured by them are classifiable under Sub-heading 39.16 and 39.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively as confirmed by the Department, or under Sub-heading 3926.90 and 3925.99 as claimed by them.2. Shri R.S. Dinkar, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture articles of plastic popularly known as Thermocol out of expandable polystyrene beads which are expanded in a pre-foaming machine and then moulded into shapes; that these take the shape of Pipe Sections and Tiles; that tiles are marketed in the name of Thermoceil which are used in ceilings for insulation purposes. He further mentioned that the Asst. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 81/89 dated June 1989 has held that Pipe Sections have been manufactured by moulding process and the duty demand was dropped; that there has been no change in the Heading and a...

indag Rubber Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order, six refund claims were rejected on the ground that time bar as well as on the principles of unjust enrichment.2. The contention of the appellant is that they filed a classification list w.e.f. 10.3.87 claiming the classification of Reversal Spray Compound under heading 35.06 of the tariff assessments were remained provisional during this period and proper officer vide order dt.23.2.89 finalised the assessments and held that the Reversal Spray Compound is classifiable under Heading 4005 of the tariff and directed the appellant to deposit the differential duty. In the month of June'89 and July'89, the appellant paid the amount of Rs. 6,99,316 in respect of the clearances made during the period 10.2.87 to 28.2.89, the appellant also started paying duty under protest under Heading 4005 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant challenged the order dat...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sangam Spinners Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT176TriDel

1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the duty demand against the respondents in respect of the burnt copper wire scrap which they cleared during the period July, 1999 to October, 1999 without payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 12,851/- with interest and equal amount of penalty against them but the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order on the ground that waste and scrap so cleared by the respondents did not stand classified under any tariff heading and also did not satisfy the other conditions detailed under Rule 57-S(2)(c).2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has been received from them. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the learned JDR.3. We have gone through the record and impugned order. We find that waste and scrap cleared by the respondents during the period i...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gontermann Peipers (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT422TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue is whether the Modvat credit of duty paid on Humidification plant is available to M/s.Gontermann Peipers (I) Ltd. 2. We heard Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, and Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate. The Respondent manufacture textile yarn including cotton yarn. They have imported humidification plant in parts and its components for creating the desired level of humidity for producing good quality cotton yarn; that both the Bill of Entry under which the goods were imported were assessed under Heading 84.45 and 84.79 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act; that both of these headings are covered by the definition of capital goods as given in Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. The Department disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the products are classifiable under Heading 84.15 of the Tariff. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed their appeal following the decision of the Tribunal in their own case. The Tribunal vide Fin...