Delhi Court December 2005 Judgments

Gangeshwar Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for restoration of appeal is filed on the ground that on 27.4.2005 when the appeal came up for hearing, the Assistant of the Counsel sought adjournment as the decision of the Larger Bench on the issue involved was not received by them by that time. However, the appeal was dismissed by following the decision of the Larger Bench in case of Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur (T). The applicants pleaded that they have claimed Welding Electrodes as capital goods and the appeal was decided without taking cognizance of the fact that the request of adjournment was made by the Assistant of the Counsel.2. Considering the above said circumstances, the appeal is restored to its original number and shall be posted for hearing The ROA application is allowed accordingly....

Filco Tours Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC269

1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the imposition of penalty. The appellants have not challenged the levy and recovery of service tax and interest thereon.2. It was pleaded that the appellants are a petty tour operator working at Agra. They had taken registration in December, 1997. However, they could not deposit the service tax, as they had to deposit the same after collecting from the customers. After depositing the tax, they were not aware that returns are also required to be filed. From 18th July, 1998, exemption was given from service tax to the tour operators, therefore, the appellants thought that they were not required to submit the ST-3 returns. The first return was filed by them on 31st August, 1998 for quarter ending December, 1997 and the return for quarter ending March, 1998, June, 1998 and for the month of July, 1998, was submitted on 25th November, 1998. Thus, there had been considerable delay in filing the returns and pe...

Marvelous Creations Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants are basically challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2 lakh under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts of the case are that appellants filed 2 Shipping Bills for export of Cotton T-Shirts and declaring the Unit price at the rate of Rs. 260/- per piece. Initially, the goods were assessed. However, subsequently, the goods were re-examined and Market Enquiry was conducted and as per the market enquiry market price of the T-Shirt is only Rs. 29 per piece. The adjudicating authority after relying upon the market enquiry held that the market value of the goods is only Rs. 8,78,178/- that is less than the draw back claim and disallowed the claim of drawback. The adjudicating authority also held that the consignments under question are also liable for confiscation and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs.3. The contention of the appellant is that they have purchased...

Caparo India Ltd. (U.K.) and Machino Plastics Ltd. Vs. Caparo Maruti L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT425; [2007]75SCL287(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The company involved in the imbroglio is Caparo Maruti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the company') . It was set up as a joint venture of three parties, namely, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL), Caparo India Limited (U.K.) (hereinafter referred to as ` Caparo group') and Mr.M.D.Jindal (Jindal group). The entire shareholding is with these three groups. The authorized share capital of the company is Rs.20 crores comprising 2,00,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. However, entire authorized share capital is not subscribed. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company is Rs.12.50 crores divided into 1,25,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The disputes have erupted between the Caparo group and Jindal group and the MUL is a silent spectator. Caprao group is having its registered office in London and holds 75 lacs equity shares of Rs.10/- each thus, constituting 60% of total paid up equity share capital. Jindal group has investment in this company through t...

Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Land and Building Department Vs. Smt. Poonam Gu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 125(2005)DLT423; 2006(86)DRJ73

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) No. 4855/1999 and WP (C) No. 4854/1999.2. Broadly, the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 claims to have come into possession in 1986-87 as actual owner of land bearing Khasra No. 86/18 (5-4) and 86/17/1 (1-16) admeasuring 7 bighas situated in the revenue estate of Village Narela, Delhi. 3. On or about 23rd August, 1990, Respondent No. 1 filed proceedings under Section 84 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the DLR Act) before the Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Revenue Assistant (SDM/RA) for being declared as a bhumidar of the said land in terms of Section 85 of the DLR Act. 4. While the above case filed by Respondent No. 1 was pending adjudication (it was decided on 21st September, 1993) the appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,...

Ranbaxy Fine Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Enterprises

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2006)BC572; 2005(2)CTLJ358(Del); 126(2006)DLT124; 2005(85)DRJ516

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs. 26,72,179.84 ps. against the defendant. The suit is founded on the averments that the defendant was appointed as a stockist of the plaintiff company for the purpose of selling laboratory Chemicals in Bhilai Nagar, Chattisgarh, manufactured by the plaintiff company. An agreement to this effect was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27th May 1998 and subsequently the said agreement was renewed on 22nd September 1999. The plaintiff company supplied the Chemicals to the defendant from its godown situated at Bhiwandi, Maharashtra during the period June 1999 to July 1999 under separate invoices. The total value of these supplies was 27,05,129.63 pc. On account of the various supplies made by the plaintiff and part payments made by the defendant, an amount of Rs. 19,07,371.84 pc. remained as balance. As this amount was not paid inspire of repeated requests and notice, suit for recovery is filed afte...

Mr. J.K. Bhartiya and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 126(2006)DLT302; 2006(86)DRJ345

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The year 1947 was of momentous events in the history of this country. It was the year of the great divide. The country gained freedom but at a heavy price. It was partitioned. An independent sovereign state, Pakistan was created. As a result of partition there was large scale migration. From the territories which remained in India, muslim population migrated to Pakistan. Hindus who had their homes in the territories which went to Pakistan migrated to India. There was a massive influx of the refugee population across the two borders. In large numbers, the migrant population which moved from Pakistan reached the city of Delhi. The city started expanding in geometrical proportion. Land was required for housing, industrial and commercial use. The Large Scale Acquisition Policy of 1961 was framed in Delhi. The policy envisaged allotment of land at pre-determined rates. The idea was to prevent unplanned growth of the city and provide land at reasonable prices to the m...

Jitendra Nath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ114

Vikarmajit Sen, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for the passing of a writ of certiorari quashing the Orders of the Central Government dated 10.6.2005 directing adherence to Rule 59(ii) of The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. For facility of reference Rule 59 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 is reproduced below:59. Availability of areas for regrant to be notified:(1) No area--(a) which was previously held or which is being held under a reconnaissance permit or a prospecting licence or a mining lease; or(b) which has been reserved by the Government or any local authority for any purpose other than mining; or(c) in respect of which the order granting a permit or licence or lease has been revoked under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7A or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 or Sub-rule (1) of Rule 31, as the case may be; or(d) in respect of which a notification has been issued under the Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 17; or(e) which has been reserved by the State Government or under Sect...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT41

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The short question that has arisen in this Petition is whether the impugned Order dated 14.9.2004, which reviewed and altered the Order dated 13.9.2002 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Respondent is legally proper, especially as to existence of any Review jurisdiction. 2. The facts of the case are that in November, 1996 the Respondent had filed a Proposal for grant of a license to it to commence Banking business in terms of Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). In January, 1999 the Petitioner, namely, Reserve Bank of India, conveyed its approval in principle for the promotion of a local area Bank on sundry Terms and Conditions. In May, 2000 the Respondent submitted a Compliance Report to the effect that it had a capital of Rs.511 lacs on that date out of which Rs.195 lacs was in Fixed Deposit and Rs.316 lacs in Current Account. Relying on these documents filed by the Respondent Bank a license was granted to it on 28.7...

Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]132CompCas113(Delhi); (2006)2CompLJ360(Del); 2006(86)DRJ6

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. (hereinafter called as `the company') was incorporated as a public limited company in the year 1991. Barely within 10 years of its existence, its net worth was fully eroded. It being an industrial company defined under Section 3(e) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `SICA'), it became imperative for it to approach the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and thus a reference in terms of Section 15(1) of SICA was filed before the BIFR in March, 2001. It was registered as BIFR Case No. 375/2001. The BIFR declared the company as a sick industrial company under Section 3(1)(o) of SICA . The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), its main creditor, was appointed as the operative agency under Section 17(3) of SICA for the purposes of preparing a rehabilitation scheme. The Draft Rehabilitation Scheme (DRS) for the revival of the company was prepared; suggestions/objections wer...