Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Jindal Strips Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT140TriDel

1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of Designated Authority.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of domestic industry submitted that the Designated Authority had not disclosed on what basis and methods the authority arrived at the normal value of their product. This information was treated as confidential. The contention is that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Birla Ericsson Opticals v. Designated Authority reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 163, this information cannot be considered as confidential. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Birla Ericsson Opticals is stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and matter is pending. In this situation, ld. Counsel made a request for adjournment to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.3. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Birla Ericsson Opticals (Supra) held that the basis and method by which the Designated Authority had arrived at normal value and various comp...

Market Committee and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)692

1. These appeals by the assessees are directed against orders of CITs refusing to register these assessees under Section 12A of the IT Act.2. All the applicants, i.e., Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and various marketing committees at different places in Punjab, Haryana and Delhi were created under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (PAPMA). All the assessees were enjoying exemption from income-tax under Section 10(20) of IT Act which prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, provided as under : "Section 10. In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included-- (20) the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property", "Capital gains" or "Income from other sources" or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a com...

Krishna Construction Co. Vs. the Engineer Member, D.D.A.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT54; 2005(81)DRJ762

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner prays for a second round of litigation. By the present petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, petitioner prays that disputes be referred to arbitration of an Arbitrator appointed by this Court. Disputes, reference whereof is sought to be got referred to arbitration are as under:-a. For refund of Rs. 25,000/- wrongfully recovered asrebate deduction if the Final Bill was paid within six months of physical completion of the work.Rs. 25,000.00b. For further payment on items less measured and non-measured. Rs.6,00,000.00c. For refund of wrongful recoveries made from executedwork. Rs.6,00,000.00d. For refund of Rs. 5,000/- wrongfully recovered inrespect of the rebate quoted for regular fortnightlyand monthly payments.Rs. 5,000.00e. For payment of reimbursement as per clause 10(c) of the agreement.Rs.4,00,000.00f. Claim for compensation and damages suffered on overheads, establishment and machinery due toprolongation of the work by delays, d...

Bhartiya Navintam Takneek Vs. National Cooperative Union of India (Uoi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ542

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner, who was a member of respondent No. 1 and whose membership was terminated vide letter dated 2nd December, 2004, has come to this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' only) with a prayer to stay the operation of the Resolution dated 29th September, 2004 passed in the General Body Meeting of respondent No. 1 and the letter of termination dated 2nd December, 2004 issued by respondent No. 1 terminating the membership of the petitioner. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, the petitioner's membership may be restored and it be allowed to participate and contest in the elections of respondent No. 1 scheduled to be held on 22nd March, 2005.2. Vide orders dated 25th February, 2005, ex parte directions were issued allowing the petitioner to send the name of its delegate to be accepted provisionally by respondent No. 2, Returning Officer.3. The respondent No. 1 ...

Premwati Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT51; 2005(81)DRJ1

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued this application for bail on merits. He submitted that the petitioner is innocent inasmuch as the case for the prosecution is that she accompanied her husband on the morning of 30.04.2001 who went to the house of co-accused Usha, to deliver 1 kg of heroin. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the husband who is alleged to have delivered the said 1 kg heroin to Usha. On the same day, i.e., on 30.04.2001, at a later point of time, while Usha was about to deliver 1 kg of heroin to some other person, Usha was apprehended by the officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). This led to her disclosing another 2 kgs of heroin which was recovered from her house. Later on that evening, a disclosure statement of Usha was recorded wherein she is alleged to have stated that the said 1 kg of heroin was supplied by the husband of the present petitioner. On the next day, i.e., on 01.05.2001, the petit...

National Agro-chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. National Research Developme ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 118(2005)DLT653; 2005(81)DRJ469

Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal impugns the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the application of the appellant-defendant, under Order xviii Rule 17 CPC for recall of a witness. It was contended before us that the application was necessitated due to the fact that the cross-examination of Mukund Mehta, PW-1 was not concluded. Inadvertently, the Court did not record the word 'deferred' and, thereforee, the same was understood to have been concluded as on 24th January, 2002 when the statement of PW-2 was commenced on priority because he was primarily to depose on some official documents. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that only one opportunity be granted for one day to cross-examine PW-1 as he was the main witness on behalf of the respondent otherwise the appellant would suffer irreparable injury and Court will also not be able to adjudicate effectively the matter in controversy, without the complete cross examination of PW-1 on record. On...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Aditya Kumar Jajodia

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT477; 2005(81)DRJ520

B.C. Patel, C.J.CM No. 3688/2005Allowed subject to just exceptions.LPA No.508/2005 & CM No. 3689/20051. The appellant Delhi Development Authority has preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge in WP(C) No. 5523/2004 dated 25.8.2004. The appeal itself has been filed after delay of 123 days and thus CM No. 3689/2005 has been filed for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the impugned order and the facts recorded therein it is apparent that this appeal is clearly an abuse of the process of law apart from the aspect of delay in filing the appeal.2. The respondent herein had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2000 which was allowed by the learned single Judge in terms of the order dated 25.11.2002. However, in view of the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court, certain directions were passed while allowing the said writ petition.3. It is necessary to set out the facts to appreciate the controversy in question. One Smt. Pushpa Ku...

Shri Sant Ram Sodhi Vs. Lt. Governor and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT386

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. By these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, directions have been sought to quash demands raised by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereafter 'DDA') on 20th October 2003 and also for a direction to the DDA to convert lease hold rights of the petitioner's property into free hold interest.2. The petitioner purchased a 378 Sq.Mtrs plot, being 621, Block-B-1, Pankha Road Residential Scheme (hereafter called 'the property') in an open auction, for valuable consideration, in 1973. The DDA executed a perpetual lease deed in the petitioner's favor. He raised a single storeyed construction on the plot. At that time, the petitioner was a public servant, being a Class-I officer in the Indian Foreign Service. He, thereforee, let out the premises to a tenant. The tenant put up certain unauthorized additions/ constructions on the property, and built shops with the aim of letting them out, unauthorizedly. The petitioner filed a suit for injunction. T...

Alpine Industries Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Appellant sent three consignments through respondent No. 2 Kerala Roadways Ltd. amounting to Rs. 94,362.32 by paying Rs. 6,622 as transportation charges. These consignments were made for Government supplies and were also insured with respondent No. 1 National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the same amount. However, the consignments when reached the destination were found in damaged condition being moist and mixed with each other and on account of moisture, the entire consignment was damaged and could not be consumed as they were medicines. He preferred the claim before respondent No. 2 for the total amount of loss. The Surveyor Mr. D.K. Taneja, appointed by respondent No. 1 assessed the loss in respect of three consignments to the tune of Rs. 94,362.32. In spite of assessment of loss by the Surveyor, respondent No. 1 rejected the claim on the ground that the appellant did not inform the concerned zonal office of respondent No. 1 company about the damage within 7 days...

Cce Vs. Trimurti Fragrance Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC361

1. This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order of the adjudicating authority allowing the refund of amount in dispute to the respondents.2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. The request has been sent by the Counsel for adjournment on the ground that he has fallen sick, but we find from the record that earlier also, the matter had been adjourned from time to time either for the non-appearance of the Counsel or his request for adjournment. Therefore, we do not find sufficient ground to adjourn the appeal any more. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned SDR.3. From the record, we find that the respondents during the period in dispute (December 2000 to February 2001) were engaged in the manufacture of Pan-masala (Gutka). They cleared these goods on payment of Basic duty of excise as well as Additional duty of excise. They had claimed refund of t...