Delhi Court May 2005 Judgments

Gian Singh Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the appellant seeking direction to the respondent who is a provider of electricity energy for not enforcing minimum payment rules because of the erratic electricity supply and also compensate the appellant for the loss of business suffered by him due to load shedding for 2 to 3 hours a day was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant has an industrial shed allotted by DSIDC to the weaker sections of society at Khyala and is running a factory there. The respondent-DVB installed the electric meter for power connection and installed another meter for the use of light and charged rent and also enforced minimum payment rules. The allegations against the respondents are that it is having monopoly on the distribution of cheapest hydro-electric, thermal and nuclear power and gas based power. It sends bills after a gap of two months and also...

Biswanath Prasad and Sons Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT81TriDel

1. The above captioned appeals directed against the common Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has up-held three different Orders-in-Original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the Service tax demand against the appellants and also imposed penalties as detailed therein.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the activities of the appellants do not fall within the ambit of clearing and forwarding agents as defined in Section 65 Clause 25 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that they are only selling agents of their principal company M/s.Raymond Ltd. and as such were not liable to pay Service tax for the period in dispute i.e. March, 1999 to March, 2003. The learned Counsel has also contended that from September, 2004, the appellants have been registered under the 'Business Auxiliary Services' category which includes the commission agents also and they are paying Service tax accordingly. The impugned Order, according to the learned Counsel, deserves to be set asid...

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT333TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty Rs. 47,395/- and penalty of equal amount.2. In this case the applicants were clearing Kinley soda by affixing MRP of Rs. 4/- in Kanpur whereas same goods were being cleared from the factories at different parts of the country mentioning MRP Rs. 6/-. The contention of the Revenue is that as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 where on any excisable goods more than one retail price is declared, the maximum of such retail price shall be the price for the purpose of valuation of such goods. We find that this Section is applicable only where on the same goods, manufactured in the factory, different prices are mentioned. In the present case the applicants are manufacturing goods in different factories and clearing to different zones on a different M.R.P. In view of this the applicants have a strong prima facie case. Therefore, the stay application is allowed and the duty and penalty are w...

Dy. Dit Vs. Raunaq Education Foundation

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)4SOT97(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 17-1-2000. The only grievance of the revenue is with regard to the decision of the CIT(A) in granting exemption under section 10(22) of the Act to the assessee.In brief, the facts and the background giving rise to the impugned dispute can be summarised as follows : The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 established solely for educational purposes. It was also registered under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.In its return of income filed for the year under consideration, the assessee declared total income at nil, having claimed exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer noted that the assessee had shown investments of Rs. 43,72,188 (at cost), in the shares of various companies, viz., BST Manufacturing Ltd., Apollo Tyres/Tubes Ltd., Apollo Tubes Ltd., etc. The assessing officer further noted that Mr. Raunaq Singh, Chairman of t...

Tata Teleservices Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)5CompLJ366(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These applications were heard at some length on 26th May 2005, with consent of parties. Counsel for the BSNL who was present on advance notice had indicated that in view of the urgency in these matters, no specific counter affidavit was being filed and that the issue of interim relief could be considered on the basis of the existing materials on record.2. The petitioners in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution, claim appropriate directions for quashing of a letter dated 14th January 2005 and certain demand notices issued by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as BSNL). A further relief by way of a writ of mandamus directing the BSNL to adhere to and comply with certain interconnection agreements and the Interconnectivity Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 framed under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 (hereafter called the '2003 Regulations' and 'the Act' respectively) have been sought.3. It is claimed that this petition is n...

Madan Lal Arora Vs. Mohan Lal Khurana and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT419

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This application for cancellation of bail has been pending since 16.12.2002. The application has been filed in respect of an order passed during vacations on 05.07.2002 whereby the anticipatory bail application was allowed and disposed of. The accused was directed to join investigation as and when he was required to do so by the investigating officer. Two points have been raised by the counsel for the applicant in this application for cancellation of bail. The first point is that the petitioner/accused has not joined investigations. As regards this, the learned counsel for the State confirms, on instruction from the I.O., Surender Singh, Inspector, P.S. DIU, East District, Delhi, that the petitioner / accused has, in fact, joined investigation.The second submission of the counsel for the applicant is that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary inasmuch as, according to her, the petitioner is a professional cheat.2. This would be a consideration ...

Savita Sapru and anr. Vs. Amarjeet Singh Juneja

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR338(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT294

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the Order dated 23rd July, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `ADJ and the Trial Court') in Suit No.297/99 titled 'Amerjeet Singh Juneja v. Smt. Savita Sapru and Anr.' dismissing the petitioners/defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC read with Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `1996 Act') for staying the respondent's suit.2. The relevant Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act reads as follows:-'8(1). The judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.'3. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement dated 23rd January, 1998 said to be instituted on...

Vinod and anr. Vs. State, Nct

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT292; II(2005)DMC190

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioners herein are the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased Poonam. The other three co-accused have all been granted bail. The father-in- law of the deceased and the bother-in-law of the deceased were granted bail by separate orders passed by this court on 11.02.2005. One of the main circumstances which weighed with this court while allowing the bail applications of the aforesaid two persons was that they had resided separately from the matrimonial home of the deceased and her husband (Vinod). Insofar as the petitioner No.2, that is the mother-in-law, is concerned, she would naturally be residing with the father-in-law. It would straightaway be considered appropriate to grant bail to her also. However, so far as the petitioner No. 1 (Vinod) is concerned, since he was residing with the deceased, the question requires further consideration. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain events unfolded after the pas...

Zenith Fashions Makers (P) Ltd. Vs. Ultimate Fashion Makers Ltd. and a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]130CompCas526(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT297; 2005(83)DRJ471

Manju Goel, J.1. Courts are often accused of delaying disposal of cases. A peculiar question has cropped up in this case because a Metropolitan Magistrate (in short `M.M.') has been too quick to take action on a complaint. The complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by the respondent for dishonour of two cheques No. 615385 dated 20.7.2003 of Rs. 8,00,000/- and No. 615387 dated 20.9.2003 of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Both the cheques were dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The return memo of the bank is dated 20.9.2003. The legal notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was issued on 15.10.2003 through Regd. Post as well as through speed post. The postal acknowledgment card shows service on 18.10.2003. The complainant pleaded that the notices were duly received but no payment in respect of the dishonoured cheques was made within 15 days of the notice as was required by the law as well as by the notice. The complaint is presented on 31.10.2003....

Rashmi Agarwal Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT62; 2005(83)DRJ153

Manju Goel, J.1. These three petitions are against the orders dated 23.8.2003 & 27.9.2003 framing charges against all the petitioners u/s 120-B read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and for quashing of criminal proceedings. The three petitioners are alleged to have conspired to cheat the New Bank of India, Connaught Place, New Delhi. On 30.11.1989, the accused No. 2, O.P.Rajvanshi, applied for financial facility to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs in the name of his firm, M/s.Vikram Enterprises. The accused No. 1, V.K.Bhutiani, was the Senior Manager at that time in that branch of the New Bank of India. The firm, M/s. Vikram Enterprises, had obtained an order for export of garments worth Rs.30 lakhs from a Hong Kong firm under a foreign letter of credit. On the basis of the export order and the foreign letter of credit, loan facility was sanctioned in the name of M/s. Vikram Enterprises on 25.11.1989. The accused No. 2 allegedly utilised about Rs.17 lakhs but did not repay the amount. The CBI...