Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

WIn Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mclaren Biotech (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(32)PTC321(Del)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 1400, Hemkunt Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Mr.Rajiv Behl is stated to be the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company who is fully authorised and familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case. The said person is empowered to sign and verify the plaint as well as institute the suit in this Court on behalf of the plaintiff-Company.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for grant of relief of injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in relation to the goods which are subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff further prayed that the defendant be restrained from passing off the goods of the defendant as goods of the plaintiff and for a relief of rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.3. Vide order dated 20th May, 2004, summons were issued against the defendant and an ad interim injunction w...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.B. Exports Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)30; [2006]286ITR603(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi bench whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the assessed company's appeal and held it entitled to deduction under Section 80-I of the Act on the duty drawback amount of Rs. 46,66,113/-.2. The assessed filed an income tax return for the assessment year 1991-92 declaring an income of Rs. 8,71,055/- and claiming deductions including a deduction on the duty drawback amount of Rs. 46,66,113/- under Section 80-I of the Act. The Assessing Officer denied the deduction on the said amount of duty drawback on the ground that the same did not constitute income of the assessed derived from industrial undertaking. Aggrieved the assessed appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. The assessed then filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which, relying upon its earli...

Smt. Prem Lata and ors. Vs. Shri Rajender Soni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT168

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this order, I would dispose of two applications, one filed by the plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code) being is No. 5981/2004 as the defendant did not file the written statement within the time granted for that purpose under the Code and/or by the orders of the court, while the other application being is 1103/2005 filed by the defendant under Section 151 of the Code read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condensation of delay in filing the written statement in pursuance to the order of the court dated 7.4.2004 and for taking the written statement filed on record.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs and the defendant are relations and the prayer in the present suit relates to passing of a decree for partition holding and declaring that the plaintiffs and the defendant are owners of the...

Kuldeep Kapoor Vs. Susanta Sengupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT149

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) against the plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor and his accomplices viz. Girdhari Lal, Ashok Kapoor and Ms. Priya Kapoor. This application has been filed in the above suit during its pendency. According to the defendant after putting his signatures on the agreement to sell, he had left the blanks unfilled in clauses 1 and 2 of the said agreement. In clause 4 of the said agreement, he had put signatures just above the said clause and this was done to validate a correction i.e addition of the letter `d' in the word `mature'. The two witnesses attested this document. According to the applicant, the copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 on which the plaintiff has based his suit, is a forged document. Photo copy of the agreement as well as the original receipt had been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively. The plaintiff and his accomplices ...

Pvc Compound and Footwear Manufacturers Association (Regd.) and ors. V ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(86)DRJ321

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this batch of petitions an assault has been launched on the decision of the Respondents to cancel the allotment of plots to the Petitioners after having received from them full payment of the sale consideration. Although the matter was heard on several dates, only Respondent No. 2, Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC), has resisted the Petitions. The basis of the defense of the DSIDC is that a change of Policy at the end of Respondents other than them had taken place and, thereforee, the Petitioners are not entitled to object to the revised Terms of Allotment. It is noteworthy that these assertions have not been stated by the Government of NCT (Respondent No. 1) who had allegedly altered the Policy.2. I had occasion to consider the annals of this dispute in Super Electricals v. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2005 VIII AD (Del) 54. The events leading to the shifting of non-conforming industries shall not be reiterated with ...

Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Del)21; 126(2006)DLT93; [2006]286ITR364(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 arises in the following circumstances:-2. For the Assessment Year 1998-99, the appellant assessed filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 11,56,780/- after claiming a deduction of Rs. 31,97,357/- under Section 80HHC. The assessed had for that year shown export sales of Rs. 24,822/- and profit on sale of import entitlements of Rs. 35,46,150/-. The Assessing Officer examined the claim for deduction made by the assessed and came to the conclusion that no exports had been made by the assessed in the Assessment Year 1996-97 or 1997-98. It also found that the import entitlement sold by the assessed related to exports made in the Assessment Year 1995-96. As regard the export sale of Rs. 24,822/-, the Assessing Officer held that the same represented the price of gift samples and not trade samples as contended by the assessed. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that the assessed was not engaged in the business ...

Bombay Snuff P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT605; 2006(86)DRJ300; 2006(194)ELT264(Del)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. An objection, touching the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, has been raised by the respondents on the threshold. The appeal, should according to the respondents, have been filed before the High Court at Mumbai exercising jurisdiction over the place where the appellant is carrying on its manufacturing business. The fact that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) who has passed the impugned order is situate in Delhi, does not, according to the respondents, confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain this appeal and determine the issues arising in the same. The facts giving rise to the controversy may at this stage be summarised as under :2. The appellant company has set up a factory in Industrial Area, Gondia, Maharashtra, for the manufacture of 'Snuff', which, according to the appellant, falls under Chapter heading 2404 of the Central Excise Tariff. It appea...

M.S. Annmary Luke Kochery Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ202

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rejoinder had been returned by the Registry as it had been filed beyond the period permitted by the Court. Rejoinder has been taken on record during the course of the hearing.2. The facts of the present case are singular. The Petitioner asserts that she is an outstanding student having secured a position in the University. She has, however, not attended the Delhi University. She appeared in the Entrance Test for the LL.B. Degree Course (2005-06) and secured the 82nd position in the Merit List. In other words, subject to her having the requisite qualifications, in the ordinary course she would have secured the Centre of her choice.3. The Schedule for Admissions is contained in the Bulletin itself. It notifies the date for declaration of Entrance Test results, First Counselling (19.7.2005), Second Counselling (23.7.2005), Third Counselling (28.7.2005), Fourth Counselling (2.8.2005). The Bulletin so contains instructions to the effect that successful candidates in ord...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC493

1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he has set aside the order made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangrur.2. It appears from the record that an order was made on 31.12.2003 by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in the context of the provisions of Section 66 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 on an allegation that the respondent who was giving tuitions and thereby providing the services of commercial coaching centre did not apply for registration under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It appears that without issuing any show cause notice as to the penalty which could be imposed under Section 75A for failure of registration, the Assistant Commissioner straightaway passed the said order holding that the respondent was liable to service tax under Section 66 of the said Act and since he had not made an application for registration ...

Hutchison Max Telecom Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-revision made by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai on 14-9-2004 revising the penalty amount of Rs. 80,000/-imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order-in-original No. 10/2002, dated 30-9-2002 under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 200/- for each day, during the period of failure to pay service tax from the day it became due till it is paid, subject to total penalty under Section 76 of the said Act which was not to exceed Rs. 36,90,965/-, being the service tax due to be paid. The Commissioner has made the impugned order under Section 84(1) of the said Act which empowered him to call for the record of the proceedings taken by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner and make an appropriate order thereon.2. Admittedly, appeals were filed against the order-in-original before this Tribunal, being appeals No. ST/73-74/04 and these were decided on 28-6-2005 [200...