Delhi Court March 2005 Judgments

Shri Ramesh Chander Vs. Shri Suresh BhasIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)140PLR1

C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12th January, 2005, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Delhi in M.C.A No. 113 of 2004 granting injunction in favor of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff and setting aside the order dated 6th May, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 96/2004 whereby the application of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 claim to be the members of the Rotary International through their respective Clubs. On 28th September, 2002 a meeting of the Nomination Committee was held to select the Governor Nominee for the year 2004-2005 for District 3010. The petitioner was selected. The said decision was challenged and the respondent No, 1 was proposed as a challenging candidate, On 16th October, 2002, the then District Governor notified the name of challenging candidates to clubs. Elections were held on 26th December, 2002. Ballot-by-mail p...

Shankar Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Itat

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]153TAXMAN62(Delhi)

ORDERBy the Court We have heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 23-11-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner for stay of the demand for the years 1994-95 to 1996-97. However, it fixed the appeals for hearing, which are stated to be fixed on 5-4-2005, The contention raised before us is that for these three years, which are sub judice before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the balance amount payable as of today is Rs. 1,83,25,495 out of which in the recent times Rs. 29 lakhs have also been recovered by the department by virtue of attachments or other coercive steps.3. The petitioner submits that he is a bona fide tax payer and has no intention to evade the payment of tax. He, however, states that as the petitioner has a good prima facie case to succeed in the appeals before the Tribunal, he would pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs...

Kanchan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT302TriDel

1. In these appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.72/91 dated 8-8-1991 the issue involved are whether the value of clearances of excisable goods of M/s. Kanchan Industries, M/s. Neha Industries and M/s. Kanchan Kitchen Aid Pvt. Ltd. are to be clubbed together for the purpose of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, whether M/s. Meghal Enterprises are the related persons in terms of erstwhile Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, whether penalties are imposable on all the Appellants and whether extended period of limitation is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Kanchan Industries, a proprietary firm of Shri Ashok Khimavat started manufacturing Mixer - Grinders of Kanchan Brand since January, 1987 and closed down their manufacturing activity of mixer from 30-11-88; that M/s. Neha Industries, Appellant No. 2, a partnership firm of two partners, namely, Ashok C. Khimavat and Dilip Kumar Rai, sta...

Hcl Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. HCL Ltd. is whether Risograph is classifiable under sub-heading 8443.50 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as claimed by them or under sub-Heading 8472.90 has confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order, as duplicating machines.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that the classification of Risograph has come up for consideration of this Tribunal in the case of Pioneer International v. Collector of Customs, Kandla 2000 (122) ELT 430 (Tri) wherein the same has been classified as a office machine having duplicating function under sub-Heading 8472.90 of the Customs Tariff. He, however, submitted that certain facts were not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the matter of Pioneer International that as per Explanatory Notes of HSN below Heading 84.43 which applies to printing machinery, it is mentioned that Heading 84.43, in addition to the normal type of printing machines also covers spe...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT165TriDel

1. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, ld. Advocate pleaded that the appellants are selling motor vehicles from their factory to their dealers and also clearing to their Regional Sales Offices. They are clearing about 75% of production direct from factory to dealers. They have fixed prices for clearance to dealers whether from factory or from Regional Sales Offices. From Regional Sales Offices, the vehicles are sold to dealer and in few cases to retail customers. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants for charging duty on the clearances made to Regional Sales Offices on the basis of sale value of the vehicle to retail customers and differential duty was demanded accordingly. He pleaded that the method adopted by them for assessment is covered by Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and they have correctly paid the duty. They have paid the duty at ex factory assessable value based on the sale of the vehicle on that date from the Regional Sales Offices to dealer. Where the sales were to...

DaikIn Shriram Air Conditioning Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Daikin Shriram Air Conditioning Pvt. Ltd. is whether the technology transfer fee and royalty are includible in the value of the goods imported by them.2. Shri R. Parthasarthy, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Daikin Shriram Air conditioning Pvt. Ltd. is a joint venture between Daikin Industries Ltd. Japan and SIEL Ltd., New Delhi; that the foreign collaboration agreement provided for payment of a lumpsum amount of US $ 3,00,000 towards know-how and royalty of 4% on sale of the licensed products; that as per the Technical Collaboration Agreement, M/s.Daikin agreed to grant the Appellants an exclusive and non-transferable right and licence to use Daikin Technology to manufacture licensed Products and existing products within the Territory and to sell, install, maintain and service licensed products; that the "Licensed Products" means such model of equipment as designated and identified in Appendix I to the Agreement and the specif...

inspector Rajender Saini and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3861; 121(2005)DLT595

Manju Goel, J.1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by Shri S.S. Rathi, M.M., New Delhi summoning the petitioners in case FIR No.154/2000 of police station Kapashera under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition was heard and disposed of vide order dated 22.1.2004 on the observations that the judgment under challenge ' suffers from no infirmity, perversity, impropriety or jurisdictional error'. The order dated 22.1.2004 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1050-1051/2004 The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in its order dated 17.9.2004 that the matter required deeper consideration and, thereforee, set aside the order and remanded the present criminal revision petition for fresh decision. The petition, thereforee, was heard again.2. The order of the learned M.M. Dated 8.8.2002 appears to have been passed suo moto. The petitioners are two police officers. The charge-sheet was put up before the Magistrate...

Sandeep Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3182; 119(2005)DLT398; 2005(81)DRJ755

Manju Goel, J.1. This petition seeks bail for a juvenile who is in observation home since 29.10.2003. The juvenile was arrested by Police Station Alipur on 29.10.2003 for an alleged offence under Section 376/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR in this case was lodged by the mother of the victim. The unfortunate victim was only six years old at the time of commission of offence. On 29.10.2003 at 6.30 p.m. the victim came to her mother with tears in her eyes and with blood on her clothes which were wet and old her that Sandeep (the petitioner) took her to his house and committed ganda kam with her. The child also reported that the mother of the petitioner first took off her clothes washed them and sent her back in those wet clothes. The Juvenile Justice Board declined bail to him. So did the learned court of sessions when approached in the revisional jurisdiction. The Juvenile Justice Board in its order dated 3.6.2004 observed that instances of sexual offences on minor girls were on...

Laxman S/O Pratap Singh Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT399; 2005(82)DRJ226

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we are disposing of the two criminal appeals, namely, Crl.A. No. 348/1997 filed by Laxman and Crl.A. No. 354/1997 filed by Shyam. Both the aforesaid persons were chargesheeted for committing an offence under Sections 302/307/34 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10th January, 1992 around 7.00 P.M one Chander Bhan was lying in a drunken condition near the railway line beneath Pul Bangash, Subzi Mandi. Jagdish, PW3, a neighbourer of Chander Bhan was passing by the said place at that relevant time and he saw both the appellants/accused Shyam and Laxman searching the person of Chander Bhan. On seeing the same, Jagdish protested against the conduct of the accused and took Chander Bhan along with him to his house. It is alleged that the two accused persons, however, removed the Identity Card of Chander Bhan from his pocket. It is alleged that when Jagdish took Chander Bhan to his house, Sat Pal and Brahm Pal, sons...

Smt. Inderjit Kaur Vs. the State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(81)DRJ735

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two applications for anticipatory bail are on behalf of the mother-in-law (Inderjit Kaur) and father-in-law (Charanjit Singh) of the deceased. The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR registered under Section 498A, 304B and 34 IPC. Under the same FIR there are three accused persons the petitioners herein and their son Baljit Singh, who is the husband of the deceased. The said Baljit Singh is in judicial custody since 3rd September, 2003. He has moved a separate bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the same shall be dealt with separately.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the offence has been registered, inter alia, under Section 304B, the ingredients of the said offence are not made out even if the contents of the FIR, which has been recorded on the basis of the statement of the deceased (Harvinder Kaur's) father, are taken to be true. According to him, the two esse...