Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 13 of about 292 results (0.014 seconds)Kaycee Electricals, (Partnership Firm) Thro Mr. Jitender Agarwal, Part ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(82)DRJ289
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this common judgment we would deal with the contentions raised before us in the above two writ petitions as they arise out of one and the same order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18th January, 2005. However, we would be referring to the facts of W.P.(C) No. 8498/2005. 2. The petitioners are engaged in the process of making copper wire rods out of copper wire bars. During the period 1st May, 1980 to 31st March, 1980, they were clearing these wire rods and availing exemption from payment of duty under notification number 119/66-CE dated 16th July, 1966. The petitioner had filed a classification list mentioning therein that the copper wire rods would be made out of copper and copper alloys in crude form/virgin metal. On 29th July, 1983 a show cause notice was issued by the respondent demanding duty on the ground that petitioners had manufactured wire rods from the wire bars purchased either from MMTC or received from the dea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT425; 2005(83)DRJ190
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred as 'the Act') is to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5th November, 2004 deleting the penalties under Section 271(C) and by accepting the appeal preferred by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 10th October, 2000.2. The finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that there was reasonable cause for not deducting Tax at Source (TDS) on the payments made by the Company to its employees overseas, for services rendered by them in India, on the ground that the said finding is erroneous and is contrary to law.3. The assessed-Company is a non-resident company incorporated in Japan. It has a liaison office in India as a permanent establishment. In the survey conducted by the Department under Section 133A at the liaison office at Delhi on 16th November, 1998, statement of certain persons were recorded, documents were found...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Singh Sawhney Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT156; 2005(82)DRJ459
Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking payment of Rs. 1,18,275.00 with interest on account of compensation for the injuries and loss suffered by him in the 1984 riots.The 31st of October, 1984 saw the unfurling of a saga of terror let lose by barbaric mobs indulging in a spate and orgy of violence directed against a specific community after the killing of late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi. The agony of the people effected would have known no bounds in as much as there are allegations and instances to the effect that the protectors of life, society and property completely failed in discharge of their duty to protect and, if did not actually perpetrate the crime, acted in their promotion and tacit support to the unruly mobs.Noticing the turmoil, tragedy and loss suffered by mankind, Anil Dev Singh, J in his judgment reported at : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)333 entitled Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, commented thus:-'5. The case demonstrates how innoce...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Through Director, Track (M), Ministry of Railways ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT572; 2005(83)DRJ238
Vijender Jain, J.1. Counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the designated authority under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that although on account of notice having been received from the opposite party and time to appoint the arbitrator having expired, though the right to supply the vacancy may not be available to the petitioner, yet the arbitrator has to be appointed in terms of the arbitration clause and only a gazetted Railway officer could be appointed the arbitrator, which the designated authority has not done. The second limb of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a similar Writ Petition (Civil) No.13448/2004, UOI v. Prestress Wire Industries, the Division Bench of this Court has issued notice of the writ petition and meanwhile has stayed the operation of the impugned order.2. We have perused the impugned order passed by the designated authority. The application/notice for appointment of arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Beekay Hosiery Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT301TriDel
1. The appellant imported 34 socks knitting machines and cleared them on payment of duty. Subsequently, they claimed refund of about Rs. 13 lakhs of the customs duty already paid on the ground that the goods in question are entitled to a partial exemption under Notification No.17/2001-Cus., dated 1-3-2001. Under the impugned order, this claim remains rejected with the observation that in the case under consideration, the duty paid on the socks knitting machines is indirectly loaded on the finished products which are sold to the purchasers. Therefore, the burden of duty has been indirectly passed on to the purchaser of the finished product and refund claim is definitely hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment as laid down by the Apex Court.2. The contention of the appellant is that the finding of the Commissioner relating to the indirect passing on of the duty burden is contrary to the facts on records and is required to be set aside.Specific reliance in this connection is being place...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abbas Mehdi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT34; 2005(84)DRJ151
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner had in his possession Indian currency notes having face value of Rs.20,000/-. This counterfeit currency was in the denomination of thousand rupee notes. The petitioner Along with other family members came to India and they were staying at the same place. The other family members have been granted bail as only the offence under Section 489-C has allegedly been made out against them. The offence under Section 489-C being a bailable offence, the other co-accused have already been granted bail by the order dated 16.02.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the further allegation is that he was apprehended near a shop where he was said to about to purchase a bag using a counterfeit currency note of the denomination of thousand rupee.2. According to the learned counsel for the prosecution the case of the present petitioner is different from the co-accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Kumar and Sons (Huf) and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Del)512; 120(2005)DLT554; 2005(83)DRJ461; [2006]280ITR152(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th September, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Delhi in Suit No.121/2003 whereby the said suit was dismissed as barred under the provisions of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act.2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the appellant herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,62,000/-, stated to be a part of the financial loss which the appellant has allegedly suffered as loss of interest on the maturity value of the NSCs and UTI Units for period between 21st October 1989 to 27th November 1992.3. The appellant herein was the plaintiff who was also an assessed. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the residential and business premises of Shri Prem Kumar under the directions of the Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Shri Prem Kumar also happened to be the 'Karta' of the appellant at the relevant time. During the aforesaid search UTI units and NSCs belonging to the HUF were ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Hanmat Singh and ors. Vs. Nodal Officer
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(83)DRJ573
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The above applications have been filed by the applicants/objectors aggrieved by the consolidated list prepared, by the Nodal Officer appointed vide orders dated 28.4.2004, of eligible persons entitled for alternate plots in lieu of their land holdings acquired in Village Nangal Dewat. Objections have now been filed in the writ petition which had been disposed of vide orders dated 2nd August, 2001.2. For a proper appreciation and understanding of nature of objections and the scope thereof, it would be necessary to recapitulate, in brief, the facts leading to the filing of these objections:-(i) On 16th February, 1982, nearly 366 residents of Village Nangal Dewat filed the above writ petition seeking quashing of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of their lands and structures. The petitioners sought restraint on the making and publication of the award and interference with possession of their lands and structures situated in...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv @ Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 121(2005)DLT120; 2005(82)DRJ607
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the person who has caused any injury on the deceased. The petitioner even as per the case for the prosecution, is the one who is alleged to have caused an injury on Ejaz, who is the son of the deceased. She further submits, after drawing my attention to the MLC, that the nature of injuries has been indicated as 'simple'. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that the injured Ejaz was discharged on the same day.2. The learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail and he cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration): 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 and in particular he referred to para 24 thereof which reads as under:-'24. Section 439(1) Cr. P.C. of the new Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Session in respect of bail. Unlike under Section 437(1) there is no ban imposed under ...
Tag this Judgment!Daryao Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 120(2005)DLT316
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By these applications, applicants seek review of the order dated 2nd August, 2001, by which the writ petition had been disposed of. The writ petition had been filed on 16th February, 1982, by nearly 366 residents of village Nangal Dewat, seeking quashing of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of their lands and structures. Petitioners had also sought restraint on the making and announcing of the award and interference with the possession of their lands and structures situated in village Abadi of and village Nangal Dewat.2. Notices in the writ petition had been issued and the Court had granted a limited stay of operation of the award to enable the Union of India to consider the question of rehabilitation of the residents of Village Nangal Dewat within three months. During the course of proceedings in the writ petition between 1986 to 2001, the Court was informed that the acquisition had been done for the public purpose in ...
Tag this Judgment!