Delhi Court April 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 6 of about 169 results (0.032 seconds)Cce Vs. Usha Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC17
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the revenue the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit to the respondents of Rs. 3840 availed by them on the basis of invoice wherein the name of the respondents was not shown as consignee, but as buyer.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that it was only a procedural lapse and the Commissioner (Appeals) as rightly ignored the same. Ld. Counsel has referred the Board's circular in this regard dt. 23.2.99 as also the Tribunal's judgment rendered in the case of Philips (Carbon and Chemical) Carbon Black, 2003 (57) RLT 307 and Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 3. I have gone through the record and heard Ld. DR also. It remains undisputed that the invoice in dispute No. 0663 was issued by M/s. New Allenberry Works, Kolkata. It also carries the declaration that invoice was issued for clearance of excisable goods from factory or warehouse for home consumption. It had been nowhere mentioned that the goods had been cleared by this in...
Tag this Judgment!Piccadily Holiday Resorts Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)94ITD267(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee company is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi dated 11/11/2002 and the only issue arising from the grounds raised therein relates to its claim for deduction on account of commission paid to property agent in computation of income from house property which has been disallowed by the authorities below.2. The assessee in the present case is a company deriving income from its hotel business as well as income from house property. A return of income was filed by it for the year under consideration declaring a total income at Rs. 9,44,390/- which was inclusive of income declared under the head "income from house property" amounting to Rs. 3,90,409/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee company has claimed deduction of Rs. 16,54,000/- on account of commission paid in computation of its income under the head "income from house property".He, therefore, required the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Shri S.K. Verma Vs. Official Liquidator, Pioneer Consolidated Co. of I ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)5CompLJ260(Del); 119(2005)DLT620; 2005(82)DRJ477
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Company Petition NO. 123 of 1989 was filed by Mr. S.K. Verma under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act. In this petition Mr. Verma has stated that he is the shareholder of the Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. (in liquidation) (hereinafter called `the company'). This company was incorporated on June 23,1939 under the Companies Act, 1913. Another company, namely, Indian Turpentine and Rosin Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the `ITRC') filed a petition C.P. NO. 107/1981 in this court under Section 433(e) and 433(f) read with Section 439 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the company on the ground that the company owed ITRC a sum of Rs. 43,57,198.31p as on 31.8.1980. The said petition was admitted and citations were ordered to be published for 6.5.1982. This order was taken in appeal and certain orders passed. However, without going into the details of further litigation, suffice it to note here that the company was ordered to be wound up by this cour...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Satyendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Shri Jitender Kudsia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT498; 2005(82)DRJ172
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.99 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby he dismissed the petitioner's eviction petition filed u/s 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( for short the 'Act') on the ground that purpose of letting was found to be residential-cum-commercial.2. Briefly narrated facts leading to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises No. 4965, 4965/1, New Darya Ganj , New Delhi also known as 26, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. It was pleaded in the petition that property belonged to his father Shri Hari Har Saroop Sharma who inducted the respondent as tenant in the mezzanine floor comprising of three rooms along with one bath and WC combined. It was further pleaded in the eviction petition that tenancy commenced in the year 1956 vide a rent n...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Nathani Vs. Sir Edward Dunlop Hospitals (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas678(Delhi); 120(2005)DLT214; 2005(82)DRJ136; [2005]62SCL362(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner who is a Non Resident Indian residing in U.S.A., has filed this petition seeking winding up of the respondent company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). He had remitted a sum of US$ 1,00,000 to the respondent company. Making of this payment by the petitioner to the respondent company is not in dispute. The petitioner states that he is entitled to receive back this amount which is a 'debt' the respondent owes to the petitioner and as this liability is not discharged on spite of service of statutory notice dated 31.3.1997 under Section 433 and 434 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, it be deemed that respondent is unable to pay the debt and, thereforee, winding up of the respondent company under Section 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 is prayed for. The defense of the Company is that the amount in question was remitted as application money for allotment of equity shares of the company to the petitioner and, thereforee, there is no quest...
Tag this Judgment!Pearey Lal and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Goodwill India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT529; 2005(82)DRJ6
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.4.2001, passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller's order dated 30.8.1999, dismissing the standard rent petition of the respondent was set aside and the case and remanded back to the learned ARC for decision afresh in accordance with law after considering the provisions of Section 76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act.2. Briefly narrated, the facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner herein executed a mortgage deed dated 27.2.1973, in favor of the respondent in respect of the space comprising of 2200 sq.ft forming part of the third floor of the building known as 13-29, Block E, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The property was mortgaged for 25 years against a loan of Rs.3 lakhs. Clause 6 of the mortgage deed stipulated that in the event of mortgage being redeemed by the mortgago...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT274; 2005(82)DRJ50
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to investigate and adjudicate in accordance with law, the wrongs committed by private respondents and has further prayed to appoint Special Commissioner to investigate the offences as indicated in the petition and to make a report to the Court. He has further prayed to initiate action against the respondent No. 5 under the provisions contained in the Citizenship Act, 1955.2. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that within the meaning of Section 10 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, it is the duty of the Central Government to investigate the matter and it mandates the Home Ministry, to deprive the Indian citizenship, if a person is found guilty. For this purpose, the petitioner has alleged that there is a report from the KGB that respondent No.5 and family members received financial...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan TIn Works Ltd. Vs. Himalaya International Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT113; (2005)141PLR50
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner is in the business of processing, printing tin plates and making containers thereof. The respondent approached the petitioner some time in October 1998 for supply of cans of different sizes. These cans were supplied by the petitioner to the respondent from time to time as per the requirement and specifications. According to the petitioner, substantial sum is due and the said debt is not paid by the respondent inspire of statutory notice and, thereforee, this petition is filed seeking winding up.2. It is the case of the petitioner that during January, 2001 and March, 2001 total cans supplied were of the value of Rs. 29,07,000/-. Goods worth Rs. 72,656.22 paise were returned by the respondent. Net supply was, thereforee, for Rs. 28,34,343.78 paise. The bills of these supplies were raised, details whereof are given in para 7 of the petition. Since payment was not made in time, the respondent also became liable for payment of interest at the rate of 18 per c...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Asha Rohtagi and ors. Vs. Erstwhile New Bank of India Through Gen ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT538; 2005(82)DRJ12
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 15.2.2005 passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby tenant's appeal was allowed and the eviction order under section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ' Act') passed by learned ARC vide order dated 24.11.2004 in eviction petition No. E-288/2004 was set aside.2. Briefly narrated, facts leading to this petition are that on 3.10.96 the petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a)(b) of the Act against New Bank of India through General Manager and Punjab National Bank seeking their eviction from premises K-16, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting contemplated under clause (a) and (b) of proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the demised premises were let out to New Bank of India for commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri B.M. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT656; 2005(82)DRJ164
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether or not there could be a direction as sought for by the petitioner herein for payment of interest on the retiral benefits, which were paid by the respondents to the petitioner.2. The petitioner, while working as an Assistant Engineer, which is a Group 'B' post, retired from service with effect from 31.5.1995. However, prior to his retirement, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.7.1994 for major penalty. The said departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement, was continued even after his retirement and the same was completed some time in the month of September 1995. However, no decision was taken on the said disciplinary proceeding consequent to which the petitioner herein filed a petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and for direction to the respondents to release the retir...
Tag this Judgment!