Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Cit Vs. Jagan Nath Dudadliar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]149TAXMAN68(Delhi)

Swatanter Kumar, J. The main question raised by the revenue in these appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under:'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the higher rate of depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent to the assessed instead of normal rate of 25 per cent on lorries ?'2. This question was answered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favor of the assesses and against the revenue, vide its order dated 30-12-2003 in ITA No. 2701 /Del/2000 by holding as under:'6. We have heard the appellant department and have also perused the orders of the lower authorities and we proceed off the issue in the following lines. At the outset, we may state that the revenue has to fail in the present appeals. A gainful reference can be made to the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the issue has been discussed in an appropriate manner, which we are tempted to reproduce as under:-'There is no doubt about the fact that the assess...

Agroils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(102)ECC275

1. Both these appeals raise common questions and are arising from the same impugned order. They are argued together and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. These two appeals were earlier decided by the Tribunal on 30th November 1999 by Final Orders No. 1014 & 1015/99. Orders which were made in these two matters were set aside in C.A. Nos. 3437-3438 of 2000 which were disposed of alongwith a group of other matters and the following remand order was made by the Supreme Court on 13.1.2003: "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the question -- whether extended period of limitation could be invoked in the present case by the Revenue or not -- requires to be re-determined by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the matters in accordance with law." 3. Since the matters were remitted to this Tribunal for deciding in accordance wit...

Berry Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 7328/- to them on C.R. Coils.2. The Modvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the supplier of the goods namely M/s. N.V. Enterprises (P) Ltd. did not have any arrangement for loading/unloading of heavy coils at the registered premises and that they were storing and supplying the strips coils from other premises. But in my view this could not be made ground for disallowing the Modvat credit to the appellants. The appellants have received the goods under the duty paid invoices issued by the registered dealer M/s. N.V. Enterprises (P) Ltd. For any violation of the rules by the dealers, the appellants could not be penalised who were the bona fide purchaser of the goods. There is no dispute that the goods purchased by them were duly paid and they had utilised in the manufacture of the final product. Ld. Counsel h...

Surya Agroils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT97TriDel

1. Both these appeals raise common questions and are arising from the same impugned order. They are argued together and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. These two appeals were earlier decided by the Tribunal on 30th November 1999 by Final Orders Nos. 1014 & 1015/99 [2000 (116) E.L.T.514 (Tribunal)]. Orders which were made in these two matters were set aside in C.A. Nos. 3437-3438 of 2000 which were disposed of along with a group of other matters and the following remand order was made by the Supreme Court on 13-1-2003 "We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties that the question - whether extended period of limitation could be invoked in the present case by the Revenue or not-requires to be re-determined by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the matters in accordance with law." 3. Since the matters were remitted to this Tribunal...

Prem Chand and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ1CAT

1. Earlier, before transfer to the Tribunal, on assumption of jurisdiction on Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), vide notification issued by DoPT, the following reliefs have been sought: (i) to take immediate action to give effect to the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India 1993 and grant the petitioner Temporary Status with effect from date/dates they became eligible for the same under the above Scheme; (ii) to further grant the petitioner all the other benefits flowing from the grant of Temporary Status to them, as per the provisions of the aforesaid Scheme; (iii) to pay the petitioner wages admissible to the skilled workers, as per the Orders issued by the Government in consonance with the duties performed by them, with back wages representing the difference between the daily wages paid to them as 'unskilled' workers and those admissible to them as skilled workers; (iv) the Hon'ble High Court may pass such other o...

Shri Baljeet Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT510; [2005(106)FLR563]

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. The matter has been heard at great length.3. The facts of the case are that a Charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner in terms of Memorandum dated 16.5.2000. The imputation of misconduct framed against him, in short, is that in respect of electricity meter of M/s J.S. Kapil and Associates there had been an inordinate delay on his part in 'transmission of relevant particulars to MSR Section which were sent by him on 26.2.1998.' By orders dated 31.7.2000, the Additional General Manager (Administration) imposed on the Petitioner the minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The appeal provided in the service rules was availed of but was not accepted by order dated 12.12.2000. That order, however, was cryptic in nature and did not spell out the reasons that weighed in the mind of the Appellate Authority in sustaining the impugned punishment. It is contended by Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned counsel appea...

indra Dhall Vs. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT422; 2005(82)DRJ431

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner filed this petition under Section 2(c) read with Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for initiating proceedings for contempt against the respondents Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta @ Arunesh Gupta and Mr. Satish Kumar Sharma.2. On 23.3.2004, notice to show cause as to why action for committing contempt be not taken, was issued to respondents. Reply affidavit and objections have been filed.3. The petitioner's case simply stated is that respondents have deliberately, intentionally and despite having the knowledge of the actual order passed by the Civil Judge, communicated to the members of the Association, only part of the order which suited them and deleted the operative part of the order, by which reliefs were refused to them. By this process, respondents have interfered with due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice which is actionable as criminal contempt under Sect...

Shaukat Ali Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT224

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question is 2707, Kucha Chelan Gali, Masjid Kale Khan, Delhi. The complainant has alleged herself to be the owner of this property and it is the case for the prosecution that one Mohd Hanif forged certain documents, including a General Power of Attorney in his favor and on the basis of that he transferred the said property to the present petitioner (Shaukat Ali), who, in turn, transferred the same in the names of Shamima Begum, Daraf Khan Begum and Rahat Khan. The learned counsel pointed out that Mohd Hanif had already been admitted to regular bail. Insofar as Shamima Begum, Darafshan Begum and Rahat Khan are concerned, they are on anticipatory bail and so also two other persons Moh Khalil Ahmed and Mohd Sharif who were the attesting witnesses in the transaction. It is further stated that one Jehangir, who is said to be the husband of Shamima Begum and is said to be in possession of the propert...

Dharambir Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 120(2005)DLT318; 2005(83)DRJ173

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 87 of 1997 and 95 of 1997 preferred against a common judgment and order dated 28.1.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1996, arising out of FIR No. 87/94, Police Station, Seelampur, Delhi, acquitting Shailendra and Shyam Lal of all charges while holding Dharambir Singh and Raj Pal, appellants herein, guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Judge by a separate order of the same date has sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and, in default, further rigorous imprisonment of two months each.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted in the judgment under challenge, are :'that on 18.2.94, S.I. Surinder Kumar was posted as in charge of PP-Usmanpur. He went to the spot with regard to the enquiry in DD No. 12 where he met ASI Narpat Singh who was also present in respect of the same enquiry where he came to know that the injured had already...

V.K. Syal Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 119(2005)DLT581; 2005(82)DRJ419

Rekha Sharma, J. 1. Shri V.K. Sayal was the Deputy General Manager in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. A departmental inquiry under Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 was held against him on five charges two of which were held as proved. The said two charges are as under:(i) Shri V.K. Sayal made Shri S.C. Nayyar, Assistant Gr. I to draw a departmental advance of Rs. 1500/- on 28.8.91 purportedly for repair of doors and windows of the BHEL Transit Flat situated at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The amount so drawn from the Finance Department was retained by Shri Sayal. The final settlement of the said advance was again done through Shri Nayyar on 27.9.91 enclosing therewith a fake Bill-cum-Receipt dated 5.9.91 of Rs. 1600/- from one Shri Gyas Mohd. Khan, 97, Lajpat Nagar, Central Market, New Delhi.(ii) On 1.8.91, an advance of Rs. 3000/- was taken purportedly for repair of Sofa Set and Setty in the above mentioned Transit Flat. A Bill fraudulent...