Delhi Court November 2005 Judgments

Saroj Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT408; 2005(85)DRJ561

R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 90 dated 16.4.2002 registered against the petitioner under Sections 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at P.S. Dilshad Garden. The petitioner is a dealer in motor spirit and high speed diesel and carries her business under the name and style M/s City Auto, Jhilmil Industrial Area, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi. On 26.2.2002 an Assistant Commissioner, Food and Supplies, Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi had drawn two samples of motor spirit from the two tanks of the said outlet. The samples were sent for testing at the Fuel Testing Laboratory, Noida. The report received from the said Laboratory opined that the samples were not conforming to the specifications prescribed for Motor Gasoline in as much as the content of Benzene % Volume was excessive by 0.1% in one sample and 0.3% in the other sample and, accordingly, it was alleged that the...

Sharid Atio L/H of Late S.H. Atiquer Rehman Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)451; [2006]152TAXMAN71(Delhi)

ORDERBy The Court:The assessed, late S.H. Atiquer Rehman, had filed returns for the assessment years 199293 and 1993-94 declaring an income of Rs. 65,000 for the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs. 72,580 for the assessment year 1993-94. The returns were processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Shri S.H. Atiquer Rehman passed away on 9-2- 1997. A notice under section 148 was issued to the appellant Sh. Shahid Atiq, son of the deceased assessed, on 26-3-1997, which was served upon him on 27-3-1997, proposing to reopen the assessment for both the assessment years mentioned earlier. The appellant, it is common ground, appeared before the assessing officer through Sh. R. Balasubramanian, chartered accountant, and furnished the requisite Explanationns which were taken into consideration and a reassessment order made by the assessing officer for both the assessment years determining the taxable income of the deceased assessed at Rs. 2,25,550 for the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs...

Delhi State Co.-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Pyare Lal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant is a Co-operative Bank. The respondent had a saving account in it wherein due to inadvertence and negligence of its staff, a sum of Rs. 40,000 was wrongly credited. In second account opened by the respondent a sum of Rs. 68,000 was debited without the consent of the respondent. 2. On account of deficiency in service in debiting the aforesaid amount without the consent of the respondent, the appellant bank has been directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as cost and also to release the seized account bearing No. 257 containing an amount of Rs. 68,000 and allow the respondent to operate the same. 3. Through this appeal the appellant bank has assailed the impugned order mainly on the premise that mala fide of the respondent was apparent when he did not point out that a sum of Rs. 40,000 was wrongly credited in his account as he kept quiet for several years and suddenly opened another account. ...

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Chandrakanta

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. After having accepted a sum of Rs. 22,230 for energising the electricity connection on 18.5.1999 the appellant failed to energise the connection due to non-finalisation of some theft case booked at the premises in question and also the abandonment of the policy for providing provisional industrial connection in the non-conforming areas, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 4.2.2003, passed by the District Forum, directed to return the sum of Rs. 22,230 deposited by the respondent with interest @ 9% p.a. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute, if there was no feasibility or possibility nor was there any policy to energise the electricity connection in the non-conforming area, the appellant had no business to retain the amount received by it for the purpose of energising the connection unauthorisedly, it amounts to highly unfair trade practice and, therefore, we do not feel inclined to in...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. P.K. Budhiraja

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of having delivered the late possession of flat purchased by the respondent from the appellant, by one and half years than the stipulated period, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 23.5.2003, passed by the District Forum, directed to pay interest for the period 13.12.1998 to 18.10.2001 as per the previous policy and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount. 2. There is no dispute that the possession was handed over on 19.10.2001, whereas it should have been handed over as per terms of the contract by 30.12.1998. According to the appellant the delay was occasioned due to time taken in providing basic amenities of water and electricity in the area in question. This explanation cannot come to the rescue of the appellant as while entering into the contract it should have been aware of the fact as to the time to be taken for...

A.B. Controls Ltd Verusdirector of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against Adjudication Order No. DE (R) III/19-26/92, dated 16-9-1992 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 on the appellant for failure to utilize a part of the amount of remitted foreign exchange acquired for the purpose of import of goods in contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant has pre-deposited the amount of penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 whereafter presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. The respondent has filed written submissions which are taken on record. 2. A Show-Cause Notice No. T-4/38-D/87(SCN), dated 31-3-1987 was issued to the appellant asking it to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against the appellant on the reason that while purchasing Functional Test Jig (consisting of 39 components) from M/s. Allen Bradley, U.K. though shown to have paid higher quoted price of US $ 27745.50 but instead of this amount...

Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal of the appellants of the refund of the goods received under Rule 173L on the ground that the appellants have not maintained the proper records in Form V and have not produced the proof of unjust enrichment.2. When the matter was called out none appeared for the appellants but I find that the appellants have filed a written submissions, which is on record. The appellants submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong as the appellants have given detailed account of the receipt of the duty paid inputs and have followed the correct procedure as laid down in Rule 173L. They have further submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellants have cleared on payment of appropriate duty the products manufactured by the appellants from the said returned goods. They also rely upon the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in their own cases, wherein, in the similar and identical s...

Shri Satish Gupta, Director and Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeal filed against common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s R.S. & Co., M/s Stich & Style, M/s Himgiri Overseas and M/s Deepshikha Overseas filed 100 shipping bills for export of readymade garments. The export of readymade garment entitles the exporters to claim drawback at the rate prescribed under the schedule. Out of the 36 containers in respect of the 100 shipping bills filed by the above exporting firms, 12 containers were detained at Mumbai port and another 10 containers were detained at Nhava Sheva Port before their placement on board on vessels bound for Dubai. 4 containers which were already sailed from Mumbai Port to Dubai were called back through the steamer agent. The contents of these containers were re-examined by the Custom officers, and it was found that the description of the goods was not as per the declaration filed in the shipping bills. The shipping bills, the description of the good...

Ashish Gupta Vs. Ibp Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi57; 2005(3)ARBLR533(Delhi); 125(2005)DLT298; 2005(85)DRJ395

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The challenge in this Petition is to the termination of the Dealership, of the Petitioner without affording him an opportunity of showing cause against the intended decision and/or an opportunity of being heard. The Respondents have asserted that since the dispute falls within the realm of private contract the Petition ought not to be maintainable; and further that the existence of an Arbitration Clause leaves no option to the Writ Court but to point to the parties in the direction of arbitration.2. Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service and Ors. : (1991)1SCC533 . He has laid store on the arguments put forward in that case to the effect that the validity of an Award ought to be decided on the principles of private law and the law of contracts and not on the touchstone of constitutional limitations to which IOCL, as an ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vamchampigons and Agro. Produ.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)259; 125(2005)DLT405; 2005(85)DRJ549; [2006]284ITR408(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted the penalty levied upon the assessed holding that since income from the sale of debentures for the previous assessment year had been treated as capital gains and taxed accordingly, the assessed had a bonafide belief that the same treatment may be given to the income for the year under consideration. For the assessment year under consideration the Assessing Officer had taken the view that income arising from the sale of debentures could be brought to tax as business income. The assessed had shown the income arising from the sale of debentures as capital gains relying upon the assessment for the previous year in which similar income had been so treated. The Commissioner was thereforee of the view that change in the opinion by the Assessing Officer as regard the income being capital gains or business income could not make out a case for levy of a penalty upon the assessed. The Commissioner has relying upon the decision of t...