Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Abc Paper Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants have sought for waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount in dispute and the penalty, as detailed in the impugned order.The duty amount has been confirmed against them by invoking the provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as the appellants allegedly, had failed to maintain separate records regarding the various inputs used by them in the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods. The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants had been maintaining the records in respect of the inputs on which they had availed the credit and also in respect of other inputs on which they did not avail the credit. He had also contended that even on the inputs on which the appellants availed the credit initially, but after utilising the same in exempted goods, they have reversed the credit. On the other hand, the learned SDR has contended that in respect of some of the inputs the appellants did not maintain the separate records and subsequent reversal of th...

Jcit, Spl. Range 23 Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Delhi)1109

1. These two appeals have been filed by the revenue on 1.3.1999 and 7.8.2000 against the orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXI and CIT (Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 24.12.1998 and 29.3.2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment orders under Section 143(3) for assessment years 1993-94 and 1996-97 respectively.2. First ground in revenue's appeal for assessment year 1993-94 is directed against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 40,01,911/- made by the Assessing Officer in relation to the assessee's claim of deduction by way of remuneration paid to field/sales organizers and sales promoters for sale of non-levy cement. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, facts of the case for assessment year 1993-94 in this behalf are on the same lines as in the earlier years. Following the reasons mentioned in the assessment orders of earlier years, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim of deduction of the sum of Rs. 40,01,911/-. On assessee's appeal, the ld. CIT (A) fo...

Anupam Bharteeya and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT369; 2005(83)DRJ299

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2004, of the Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate had directed the police to investigate the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and to submit a status report on 8th December, 2004.2. The facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Magistrate to the effect that the Citi Bank had issued ATM cards and respective pin number on those cards for the accounts held by the complainant in the name of Mr.Mohanjit Singh, but the same were never used by the complainant since they were not received by the complainant to whom they were posted through Ordinary Post. The complainant on 27th December, 1999, issued a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs which was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The complainant on enquiry came to know that somebody had illegally withdrawn money from his account. The matter was reported to the Bank and it revealed that Rs. 17,44,000/- had...

Smt. Rachna Kapoor Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]131CompCas221(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT431; 2005(83)DRJ297

Manju Goel, J. 1. These are five petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the orders summoning the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for which five complaints have been filed by the respondent No. 2 M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd. The impugned orders in all the five complaints are similar and have been passed on 16-2-2004. The complaints are similar. The complainant M/s International Print-O-Pac Ltd. alleges that the accused No. 1 M/s National Food Products(India) Pvt. Ltd. issued several cheques towards repayment of its dues towards the complainant and these cheques when presented were returned unpaid on account of insufficiency of funds. The Crl.M.C.188/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889715, 889716 and 889717 for Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Crl.M.C.185/2005 relates to the complaint in respect of three cheques bearing No. 889712, 889713 and 889714 for ...

Smt. Gian Kaur Suri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2005Delhi394; 122(2005)DLT1

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this common judgment, I would be deciding this batch of 8 review petitions, against the judgment dated 1st August, 2003, by which 9 writ petitions were dismissed.2. At the outset, it may be noticed that out of the nine writ petitions which were decided vide judgment dated 1st August, 2003, review applications have been filed in eight petitions. Petitioner Ved Prakash Masta in WP(C) 2429/1986 does not appear to have preferred any review petition. While petitioner Inder Raj has now preferred review petition bearing no.9121/2003 after having withdrawn LPA 560/2003.3. For facility of reference, the grounds sought to be raised in each of the review petition are summarized. Common grounds in all the review petitions shall be taken up together for consideration, while grounds specific or individual to each review petition, would also be dealt with separately.(I). RA.No.10441/03 in WP(C).2026/86 (Smt Gain Kaur Suri v. UOI & Ors.)Petitioner claims to be in possession of ...

Sweety Vs. Smt. Prakash Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT509; II(2005)DMC474; 2005(83)DRJ387

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Revision Petition 521/2005 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th March, 2005, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 31/2004 arising out of F.I.R. No. 572/1997, Police Station Sultanpuri whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all charges.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-'Smt.Sweety was married to Sh. Manjeet Singh on 24.11.93. After marriage, parties resided at 1948-B/151, Tri Nagar, Delhi. Family comprised of the couple, the parents of the husband, two younger brothers of the husband and two small daughters of the couple. The relations between the complainant Sweety and her in-laws were bitter. On 3.6.97, Smt. Sweety, her husband Manjeet Singh Along with their younger daughter moved to the house bearing No. D-15. Budh Vihar, Delhi.On 4.6.97 at about 6 PM Sweety was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi by her husband with 30% burns on her body. MLC was prepared. The doctor ...

Sucha Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT409; 2005(83)DRJ283

R.S. Sodhi, J.Crl. M.A. 5696/2005:1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.Crl. Rev. P. 453 - 456/2005 & Crl. M.A. 5697/2005:2. These Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 25th February, 2005, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 43 and 44/2003 whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against all the accused under Section 307/34 IPC in case State v. Sucha Singh Etc. (F.I.R. No. 321/1998). Additional Charges were framed under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused Sucha Singh. In case State v. Deepak Etc. (F.I.R. No. 324/1998) charges under Section 392/34; 307/34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons, with a separate charge under Section 27/25 of the Arms Act against accused Deepak.3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that in State v. Sucha Singh Etc. (F.I.R. No. 321/1998), there is no material on record to justify a charge framed by the trial court under Section 307 IPC. He has taken me thro...

Ram Kishan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT502; 2005(83)DRJ370

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16th November, 2004, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.41/2004, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner herein arising out of an order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has held the Petitioner guilty under Section 279/304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 304A IPC and further imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC.2. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by the learned Counsel that the Petitioner has already undergone nearly eight months incarceration and is now in judicial c...

Uppal Eng. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Cimmco Birla Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR404(Delhi); IV(2005)BC105; [2006]132CompCas4(Delhi); 121(2005)DLT539; 2005(84)DRJ608

R.C. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying a direction on the PWD of Rajasthan State to release a sum of Rs. 1.33 crores, out of a total escalation of Rs. 4.51 crores in favor of the petitioner upon the petitioner furnishing security for the same or in the alternative for a direction to place a sum of Rs. 1.33 crores in a secure account till the rights and liabilities of the parties are finally adjudicated upon in the arbitral proceedings.2. The petition has been moved with the averments and allegations that the respondent was awarded the work of widening, strengthening and reconstruction of Bhiwadi-Alwar-Karauli-Mandrail Road, (235 KM long) by the Rajasthan, Public Works Department in the year 1992. The respondent in turn engaged the petitioner and some other sub-contractors to execute the said work. Petitioner was to do the work of widening, strengthening and reco...

Sunita Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2005)141PLR46

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 11.4.2001 and 15.12.2002 pertaining to allotment of Government Accommodation, to the petitioner, have been impugned.2. The petitioner is Programme Executive working with the All India Radio. She was allotted a Government quarter on 2.12.1998 in Andrews Ganj (hereafter called 'the flat'). It is averred that pursuant to a complaint by someone that the petitioner had sublet the flat unauthorizedly, investigations were carried out, and a show-cause notice issued. Subsequently, the show- cause notice was dropped/recalled. On 20.12.2000 another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging that she had sublet the flat in contravention of rules; her response as to why the allotment ought not to be cancelled and further action be not taken, was elicited. The petitioner sought for information including a copy of the complaint, through her ...