Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Mr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi125; 126(2006)DLT678

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Mamta, wife of the petitioner owns property No. B-46/6 Main Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura, Delhi-53. She has constructed thereon a building consisting of a ground, first and second floor. A departmental store under the name and style of Asia Family Mart is being run from the building. It is stated in the writ petition that ground floor is being used for sale of merchandise. First floor is used as an office and second floor is used for domestic purposes. Petitioner who is the husband of Mamta claims to be running the departmental store. He claims to be user of the electricity supplied at the premises.2. On 10.5.2005 the enforcement wing of the respondent conducted a raid at the premises. Following connected load used for domestic purposes was found:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Item Unit Load (Watt) Total Load (KW)X Quantity--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Lamp...

Josoka India Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)450

ORDERBy The Court:Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record including the order under appeal. It is a common ground that the appellant was not heard by the Tribunal before passing the order under appeal. All that the Tribunal has in this regard stated is that since the assessed has not appeared despite a notice under registered AD, the appeal was being decided on merits ex parte. Mr. P.C. Jam, learned counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the proposition that the Tribunal was competent to dispose of the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant but submitted that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly the fact that promoters of the appellant- company had been affected by Hindu Sikh riots of the year 1984 and the company itself was under a scheme of reconstruction before the BIFR, the matter could be remitted back to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to the appellant of being heard in the...

Kishore D. Shroff Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal has been delivered by Shri R.N. Poddar, Member. 2. These appeals are directed against a common adjudication order No. ADJ/200 and 201/B/SDE/PKA/DD/2000 dated 30-10-2000 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate in common proceedings under section 51 of FERA, 1973 whereby total penalty of Rs. 25,85,000 imposed on appellant in appeal No. 704/2000, Rs. 13,10,000 on appellant in appeal No. 705/2000, Rs. 8,50,000 on appellant in appeal No. 706/2000, Rs. 41,00,000 on appellant in appeal No. 778/2000 and Rs. 4,00,000 each on appellant in appeal Nos. 707/2000, 708/2000, 709/2000, 779/2000 and 780/2000 pursuant to two separate SCN No. T-4/80-B/SDE/PKA/99 (SCN-I) and (SCN-II) both dated 18-11-1999 (hereinafter referred to SCN-I and SCN-II. Under SCN-I the original appellant in appeal No. 704/2000 died during the pendency of the appeal and his wife Smt. Ranjan K. Shroff (appellant in appeal No. 705/2000) is substituted, appellant in appe...

Majestic Auto Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeals are being taken up in pursuance to the order-dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of two Wheeled Motor Vehicles. Appellants also exporting the motor vehicles manufactured by them. The assessments were made Page 0547 provisional and, thereafter, getting the relevant data from the appellants, the adjudicating authority finalized the assessment. While finalizing the assessments, the adjudicating authority held that in view of Section 4 (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 the expenses incurred on freight and insurance for export under Bond without payment of duty are not allowable as deductions from the assessable value on goods for home consumption. Against this finding, appellants filed appeals and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the present appellants on the ground that the expenses incurred on freight and insurances goods exported under Bond, is admissible ...

Maestro Motors Ltd. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC398

1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.The case is listed since 8.6.2005, therefore, are being taken up in the absence of the appellants.3. In this case the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of automobile cars. The appellants imported 9 sets of components for manufacture of 9 cars in CKD condition and availed the benefit of Notification No. 72/93-Cus. dated 28.2.93. A show cause notice was issued for denial of the benefit of notification. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order held that appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 29/83 (sic Notification No.72/93-Cus) and confirmed the duty. The appellants filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal.4. The contention of the appellant in the present appeal memorandum is that they are entitled for the benefit of notification No. 72/93-Cus.dated 28.2.93 was denied and duty was confirmed.5. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble S...

Coca-cola India Inc. Vs. Addl. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT224(Delhi)

This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 1998-99, raising the following grounds : "1. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is bad in law, totally contrary to facts, perverse and without application of mind and, therefore, deserves to be set aside to the extent it fails to deal with the main and only surviving ground of appeal.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in failing to give a clear order on non-applicability of section 44D to our case while at the same time holding that the appeal is partly allowed.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in following his own order passed for the earlier years upholding the applicability of section 44D to the facts of the appellant's case, thus totally failing to take cognizance of crucial developments subsequent to the date of passing orders for earlier years.3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not taking cognizance of the developments even after the same was brought to his notice.3.2 As a result of the above, the Commissioner (Ap...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hudco Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR330(Delhi)

1. The respondent-assesses was admitted as a member of what is known as India Habitat Centre, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. A certain piece of land was allotted to the IHC for construction of a superstructure in which superstructure, the assessed was entitled to secure a proportionate covered area. The cost of construction of the superstructure was to be contributed by all the member institutions of the IHC on a. no profit no loss basis.2. It is common ground that the assessed had originally applied for allotment of 15,000 sq. mts. of covered area in the building to be constructed by the IHC and deposited the amount demanded by IHC accordingly. The assessed subsequently reduced its claim for the constructed area from 15,000 sq. mts. to 8,000 sq. mts. and claimed interest on the excess amount deposited by it with IHC. The governing council of IHC, however, declined to pay any interest on the excess amount deposited by the assessed. That decision was communic...

Sona Koyo Steering Systems Limited Vs. Shonkh Technologies Int'l Limit ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT220; 2005(85)DRJ489

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears, mesne profits, interest and costs. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is that of Lesser and lessee in respect of the suit premises being Flat Nos.1205, 1205A, 1206, 1207, 1208 and 1208A in the 12th Floor of Indraprakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. The plaintiff had let out the suit premises admeasuring approximately 2605 sq. feet (super area) together with furnitures and fixtures installed thereat as well as two parking areas. The property was let out as per the registered lease deed dated 16.05.2002 (Exhibit PW-1/3) w.e.f. 01.06.2002 for a period of three years ending on 31.05.2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,09,410/-.2. An application under Order 39 Rule 10 (IA No.2824/2003 had been moved and by an order dated 27.09.2004, this court had directed the defendant to deposit the admitted arrears. Unfortunately, the defendant did not do so, as a result of which by an order d...

M.M. Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iran Air and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC453; 125(2005)DLT244

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The present suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,07,527/- with costs and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till the realisation of the amount of decree in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Originally, there were two defendants. However, the suit insofar as the claim against the defendant No. 1 is concerned, was, in fact, time barred as recorded in the order dated 01.02.2005 in view of the special period of limitation prescribed under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Insofar as the defendant No. 2 is concerned, the suit has proceeded ex parte against it. The plaintiff has led ex parte evidence in the form of filing an affidavit as well as documents exhibited as (Exhibits-PW-1/1 to PW-1/15.2. In a nutshell, the case is that the plaintiff, which is a private limited company and carries on the business of, inter alia, exporting garments, had received a purchase order from the defendant No. 2 for supply of garment...

Dr. Ashok K. Mittal Vs. Shri G.D. Pathak

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT579; 2006(86)DRJ236

ORDERJ.P. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12.5.2004 disposing of two applications - i) under order VIII rule 1 read with rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the plaintiff and ii) application under Section 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as also an application under Section 5 & 12 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the defendant.. The application under order VIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed whereas the application under Section 5 & 12 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the defendant has been allowed and the defendant's written statement has been taken on record. However, application of the defendant under Section 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. Aggrieved the plaintiff has filed the present petition.2. I have heard Mr. V. Shekhar Advocate learned counsel for the peti...