Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

N. Singh (Minor) Vs. Director of Education Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 121(2005)DLT534; 2005(83)DRJ17

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This petition raises a question of great and general importance. The Petitioner is a student of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi, having joined it in 1993 in the Nursery. In May, 2005 the Petitioner passed the Class X Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) securing an overall percentage of 65.2%, with 60% in Science and Mathematics. He thereupon applied for the Science Stream in Class XI, but has been offered only the Commerce Stream without Maths. According to the averments in the petition, the Petitioner's father met the Principal of the School in the middle of June, 2005 but the renewed request for the Petitioner being permitted to join the Science Stream had not fructified. It has been asserted that as many as 90 seats are still available in the Science Stream, in respect of which admission of outside students is under consideration. Learned counsel for the School has admitted that there are some vacant seats remai...

Magma (India) and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(189)ELT261(Del); 2006FAJ5

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The prayers in these Writ Petitions are for the issuance of a direction to the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) to carry out another testing of the food samples drawn by the Commissioner of Customs from import consignments. The Petitions have been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) on the grounds that there is no legal provision enabling the second testing of any food sample. In the case of Magma (India) Versus Union of India WP (C) No. 10553-54/2005, this argument is in variance with the stand already taken by Central Food Laboratory which is to the effect that re-testing of food samples by the Central Food Laboratory may be carried out only on Court intervention. 2. Mr. Rishi Manchanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, had drawn attention to Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 which empowers the Proper Officer at the time of the entry or clearance of any goods or at any time while such goods are being passed through the ...

Vibhuti Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT124TriDel

1. The original Power of Attorney which is purported to have been executed by Mrs. Anjana Jagetia before Notary Marilyn Kimpel at State of Ohio by which Shri R.K. Malpani was authorized to file appeals before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur made on 25-9-2002, has been placed on record. It appeared that this original Power of Attorney executed on 27-12-2002 has not been stamped is required by Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act. The Supreme Court in a similar context held in Malaysian Airlines Systems BHD v.Stic Travels (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 451, that under Section 3(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty is payable on every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or promissory note) mentioned in the Schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of India on or after that day, relates to any property or to any matter or thing done or to be done to be used in India, the power o...

Ellora Time Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT491TriDel

1. The appellant M/s. Ellora Time Limited is a manufacturer, inter alia of telephone. The appellant had also excise licence as a manufacturer of telephone.2. In August 1995, the appellant imported at Kandla Port two consignments and sought their customs clearance as part of telephone.The invoice dated July 28, 1995 which covered the import, described the goods as "Materials for corded telephone for model No. TH-956". The import comprised 15,000 pieces each of different parts of telephone instruments. The parts were themselves grouped under 11 headings like plastic moulded, adhesive cushion, pressure pad, receiver/transmitter, switches capacitor/dies, diod etc. The consignments were packed in 386 cartons. The only parts which were not included in the consignments are "Main PCB & Dial side PCB" (remarks in the invoice). While the appellant claimed classification of the items under Tariff heading for parts, the Customs took the view that the correct classification is as telephone ins...

Vivhuti Exports and ors. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The original Power of Attorney which is purported to have been executed by Mrs. Anjana Jagetia before Notary Marilyn Kimpel at State of Ohio by which Shri R K Malpani was authorized to file appeals before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur made on 25.9.2002, has been placed on record. It appeared that this original Power of Attorney executed on 27.12.2002 has not been stamped as required by Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act. The Supreme Court in a similar context held in Malaysian Airlines Systems BHD v. Stic Travels (P) Ltd. reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Case 451, that under Section 3(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty is payable on every instrument (other than a bill of exchange or promissory note) mentioned in the Schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of India on or after that day, relates to any property or to any matter or thing done or to be done in India and is sought to be used...

Bharti Infotel Limited Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Telegraphic service is one of the services which is liable to service tax. 'Taxable service' in regard to telegraphic service has been defined under at serial No. 41 (b) of Finance Act, 1994 as service provided: "41 (b) to a subscriber, by the telegraph authority in relation to a telephone connection".Telegraph authority' has been defined in the same Act under serial No.42 as under: (42) telegraph authority has the meaning assigned to it in clause (6) of section 3 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 and includes a person who has been granted a license under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of that Act." Tax is payable on ad valorem basis. The value of taxable service has been defined in Section 67 at serial (b) as under: "in relation to telephone connection or pagers provided to the subscribers shall be the gross total amount (including adjustments made by the subscribers at the time of applications for telephone connections or pagers) received by the telegraph aut...

Technocrat System Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT306TriDel

1. In this appeal the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Appeal under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the confiscation of the branded goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty as detailed in the Order-in-Original of the adjudicating authority.2. Learned Counsel has contended that the brand names in question namely, Turnado' and 'Yamaha' which had been used by the appellants in the manufacture of the goods do not belong to other persons, rather, these are of the appellants themselves. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. But after going through the record, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel. We find from the record that the brand name 'Turnado' is owned by M/s. Sung Porn Co.Ltd., Taiwan who had appointed M/s. Kobian India Pvt. Ltd. as their sole distributor for sale of their branded goods in India, while the brand name 'Yamaha' stands registered in the name of M/s. Electro Equipment E...

R.P. Punj and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Appellants herein are defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Original Application No. 543/1999 on the file of D.R.T.-I, Delhi. The respondent financial institution herein instituted the said Original Application against these appellants and the principal borrower for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was proceeded with but however could not reach a finality.2. In the meantime, the principal borrower i.e. the defendant No.1 in Original Application moved the BIFR for appropriate rehabilitation under SIC Act. The BIFR registered the representation of the principal borrower who is defendant No.1 in Original Application case No. 331 of 2000. The BIFR having taken into consideration totality of issues made certain arrangements which are reflected in sub-para (e) and (1) of para 17 which is as under: The financial institutions and banks could continue their suit filed earlier against the company before the company got registered in terms of the Act, but no decree could be executed or no fres...

Satish Chander Sabharwal and anr. Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT170; 2005(83)DRJ40

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A family dispute and the consequent challenge to the Will dated 06.11.1990 of late Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal has given rise to the present proceedings. The appellants filed probate proceedings before the trial court, but learned Additional District Judge (ADJ) vide Order dated 06.03.2000 dismissed the petition holding that the Will was a suspicious document. The appellants aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal being FAO No. 181/2000, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge on 14.10.2004 and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the said Order.2. The primary contention of learned senior counsel for the appellants was that there was no reasons really recorded for the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge and since it was a first appealable order, findings and discussion ought to have been made both on facts and law. A perusal of the Order showed that the facts recorded by learned ADJ had been reproduced by learned Singl...

Vijay Kumar Luthra Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 122(2005)DLT358

R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.04.2002 whereby the learned Judge in his order on charge has discharged Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal as also Sunita and Beena.2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the supplementary statements of the injured recorded by the Investigating Agency which was changed to Crime Branch at the request of the complainant, the name of Sushil Tiwari and Zia Lal find mention as one of the persons responsible in the causing of the injuries. He submits that finding arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge that no supplementary statement of a witness can be recorded, is incorrect. He further submits that there is no material on record at the moment to show involvement of Sunita or Beena, since they have not yet been identified by any other witnesses.3. Counsel appearing for Sushil Tewari and Zia Lal submits that the supplementary statement is an afterthought. The complain...