Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments

Nepal Singh Vs. Om Pal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi330; III(2005)BC540; 119(2005)DLT272; 2005(82)DRJ320

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.54,450/- under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellant/defendant herein, on the basis of a pronote-cum-receipt dated 6th May, 1982. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant/defendant being in need of money repeatedly requested the plaintiff in the month of April, 1982 to give a loan of Rs.40,000/-. It was alleged that the plaintiff agreed and gave a loan of Rs.40,000/- to the defendant on 6th May, 1982, who on receipt of the said loan from the plaintiff executed a promissory note-cum-receipt of the same date after receiving the said amount in cash with stipulation to re-pay the same on demand along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. However, thereafter, the defendant failed to re-pay the amount despite several repeated oral demands and accordingly a registered notice dated 15th April, 1985 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant demand...

Sh. Abhay Chauhan Vs. Ms. Rachna Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi18; 119(2005)DLT513; I(2005)DMC801; 2005(82)DRJ1

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.2. This petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 21st December 2004, passed by the Additional District Judge which declined the joint prayer made by the parties to waive the period of six months prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act').3. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife, who are both Hindus, was solemnized on 27th April, 2001. The parties separated in November, 2001 and it is not in dispute that since that date the parties have been staying apart.4. The parties had filed the application for divorce by mutual consent on 16th December 2004 under Section 13B(1) of the Act. The impugned order dated 21st December, 2004 declined to waive the statutory period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads as under:'13B. Divorce by mut...

Jagdish Preshad Gupta Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Del)290; [2006]283ITR583(Delhi)

ORDER1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at some length. The petitioner claims two reliefs in this writ petition. Firstly, challenge to the order of the assessment dt. 30th March, 2005 after serving notices upon the petitioner under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the order of assessment was passed making certain computations and passing an order of tax interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C and even initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. Secondly, the petitioner has prayed that in relation to asst: yrs. 1998-99 to 2000-01 and 2002-03, no reasons have been supplied to the assessed despite a specific request made on 8th Dec., 2004 and this action of the respondent is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive shafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 . As far as second relief is concerned we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner was en...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Anjana Singh Proprietor of Centre

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC145

1. In this appeal the Revenue has questioned the correctness of the part of the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the duty demand on question of limitation against the respondents, while upholding the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on them.2. We have heard both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents availed duty exemption on the hospital equipments to the tune of Rs. 3,70,136 in terms of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. on the basis of Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Service. But having failed to comply with the conditions of the notification, the respondents were served with a SCN raising duty demand and proposing confiscation of the goods seized from their premises by the officer at the time of raid. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand as well as confiscation of the goods and imposed penalty on the respondents as detailed in the Order-in-O...

J.M. Baxi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT53TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellants themselves had requested for conversion of the vessel from "foreign run" to "coastal run".Accordingly, the stores consumed have been assessed to duty. It is the claim of the appellants that certain quantities of imported cargo were carried out by the vessel and hence the same should be deemed to be on foreign run. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate also placed reliance on Board's circular dated 1-6-63. A perusal of the said circular, however, indicates that a vessel may be deemed to be foreign run if it is predominantly carrying foreign cargo or passengers. At this point of time, it is not possible to ascertain whether the impugned vessel was carrying foreign cargo predominantly as no details have been furnished of the local cargo. As such, I am of the view that the lower appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is rejected....

Shri R.C. Bakshi S/O Shri S.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who retired on superannuation as Income Tax Officer on 30.11.2005, seeks the following reliefs: (i) To direct the Respondents to revoke the suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 26.06.1997. (ii) To direct the Respondents to reinstate the applicant in service w.e.f. 26.06.97 treating him on duty till date. (iii) Pay all consequential benefits including pay and allowances as difference excluding the subsistence allowance already paid to him. (iv) Grant all increments of pay and fixation of pay to which the applicant was entitled but for the suspension. (v) To pass any order or directions, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice.2. Applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.9.2005 whereby, despite his acquittal in a criminal case of corruption, on which he had been placed under suspension, he had been continued to be under suspension on account of the pending criminal trial for an offence o...

Reunion Engg. Co. Limited Vs. National Building Construction Corporati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR574(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT252; 2005(82)DRJ204

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. These are objections preferred by the N.B.C.C./respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the award dated 22nd October, 1994. 2. The facts of the case as per the claimant/petitioner M/s Reunion Engineering Co. Ltd. are as under:-(a) In 1980 NBCC/respondent entered into an agreement with State Organisation For Tourism (SOFT) Iraq for construction of two hotels (Mosul and Dokan). NBCC entered into a contract with the petitioner to execute the electrification works in the aforesaid two hotels. The works were completed in 1987. Certain disputes arose under the contracts. Disputes were to be settled by arbitration. As per the arbitration agreement in the contract, the named arbitrator was Project Director, NBCC or any person appointed by him.(b) The post of the project Director was not available at the time of raising the disputes. NBCC appointed one Shri V.A. Kelkar, one of its Chief Engineers as arbitrator....

Vinay Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT182; 2005(82)DRJ221

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 19th November, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 1660/2003. The said petition was filed by the writ petitioner praying for quashing of the order dated 30.5.2003 whereby his claim for appointment as Head Constable on compassionate grounds was rejected by the respondent.2. The father of the writ petitioner while serving in Delhi Police died in harness on 20.5.2000. After his death Smt.Chando Devi, the widow made a request for appointment of her son Shri Vinay Kumar, the present petitioner in the Delhi Police on compassionate ground. On receipt of the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the petitioner by his mother, the application was processed along with other cases of the dependents of deceased Delhi Police personnel for consideration by the Screening Committee for appointment in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds. The Screening Committee was headed by t...

Anant Raj Agencies Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR590(Delhi)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide is No. 4518/1996 DDA has laid a challenge to the award dated 23.12.1995 published by Shri L.R.Pawa the sole arbitrator appointed vide reference dated 21.1.1993 to decide the disputes and differences between M/s.Anand Raj Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) and DDA (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).2. Claimant was awarded the work of construction of flats and allied works in Trilok Puri, Pocket-F, vide agreement No. 30/EE/DD-VIII/85-86. As is usual with DDA, full payment not being made, claimant raised certain claims and since the contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause, disputes were referred to arbitration. Claimant had 15 substantive claims, some of which had sub-heads. Claim No. 16 and 17 pertained to interest demanded by the claimant. 3. Claimant submitted its statement of fact vide letter dated 22.2.1993. DDA submitted counter statement of fact on 28/31.7.1993. Additional counter statement of fact was filed...

Indian Farmer Fertilizers Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the refund claim filed by the appellant was rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of 5 consignments of Muriate of Potash and filed Bills of Entry. The proper officer assessed the Bills of Entry and appellant paid duty accordingly and got cleared the goods. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim of the ground that the charges for loading and stevedoring are not to be included, in the assessable value of the goods. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not tiled any appeal challenging the assessment order and in the refund claim the appellant challenged the assessment made by the proper officer and claimed the refund.3.The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. CC, Chennai to submit that the assessment can be challenged in a refund cla...