Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Motilal Nehru National Institute Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)2STR142

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of predeposit of the demand of service tax of Rs. 5,45,299/- and equal amount of Penalty. In this case, the demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that applicants are providing consulting engineers service which is covered under the Service Tax Rules.2. The contention of the applicants is that they are institute of technology. Apart from that education, they are doing certain test and as per the request of various clients. As they are have a well equipped laboratory, testing is done in respect of steel test, soil test, soil investigation for building etc. In these circumstances, as they are only doing test, therefore, they cannot be considered as consulting engineers.3. Keeping in view that they are only doing test, predeposit of the demand of service tax and faculty is waived for hearing of the appeal.Stay petition is allowed....

Smt. Sheela Gehlot Vs. Smt. Sonu Kochar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ328

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance or, in the alternative, for recovery of damages in respect of property bearing No. 60, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 819 sq.yds.2. The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for ad interim injunction in respect of the property in question along with the suit and interim orders were granted on 11.5.2005 directing status quo to be maintained in respect of property at the stage when the summons were issued in the suit. Thereafter certain directions were passed for the plaintiff to appear in court along with documents to show that the plaintiff was capable of making the payment of Rs. 9.3 crores which was the stated consideration by the plaintiff in respect of the property in question and for the plaintiff to produce Income Tax Returns and pass book of bank accounts maintained by her. The plaintiff fil...

Unison Metal Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The matter has been referred to the Larger Bench after taking into consideration to contrary decision of the issue i.e. Nu-Wave Shoes v.CCE 2001 (138) ELT 331 and P.T. Steel Inds. v. CCE Whether the amount of 8% debited from RG-23A Part-II Account in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) and collected from the customers is required to be deposited with the Govt. under the provisions of Section 11D of Central Excise Act. In para 9 of the. referral order the Bench observed that we are not passing any order on the other issue raised by the appellant as regards the limitation or the fact that this amount of 8% was not collected from their customers.3. Before deciding the issue whether the amount of 8% debited from RG.23A Part-II Account in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) and collected from the Customer is required to be deposited within Govt. in terms of the provisions of Section 11D of Central Excise Act, the issue whether the amount of 8% was collected by the assessee from ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rotomac Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT29TriDel

1. The issue regarding the classification of Mica Separator Sheets and Mica Moulding Sheet is referred to a Larger Bench. The Regular Bench while referring the matter to the Larger Bench noticed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Isovolta (I) Pvt. Ltd. -2001 (129) E.L.T. 642. The Tribunal in that case held that Mica Strips are classifiable under Heading 85.46 of the Tariff. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench to reconsider the above decision of the Tribunal.2. The respondent in the present case are manufacturing Mica Separator sheets/Mica moulding sheets and Mica Vee Cone and claimed the classification under Heading 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. The adjudicating authority accepted the classification as claimed by the present respondent in respect of Mica separator sheets and Mica moulding sheets. However, Mica articles were classifiable under Heading 8546.00 of the Tariff. Revenue challenged the order passed by the adjudicating authority in ...

Anant Spg. Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Application seeks condonation of delay of 292 days in filing the appeal against order-in-appeal No. 403-CE/BPL/04.3. The ground taken is that on the same issue, the appellant was in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that they succeeded in the Supreme Court on 10-8-2004. It is being submitted that the appellant's management was under the impression that since the issue was before the Apex Court, there was no requirement to challenge each of the orders before the appropriate authorities and that all pending maters would get concluded in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also being pointed out that upon the judgment and order being passed in their favour, they approached the lower authority with refund application. The submission of the Id. Counsel is that it is not on account of any enaction or negligence on the part of the appellant that delay took place but on account of a bona fide belief that the relief will follow from the judgment of the Apex C...

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

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ282CAT

1. The question posed in the present O.A. is whether casual labourer is entitled to regularization merely on completion of 206/240 days, as the case may be, in two consecutive years, under DOP and TO. Ms. dated 26.10.1984 and 07.06.1988? 2. This is the second round of litigation. On an earlier occasion 4 applicants as in this O.A., instituted O.A. No. 860/2004 and prayed for regularization of their services in terms of DOP and TO.M. dated 26.10.1984 read with O.M. dated 7.6.1988 and also based on the decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Partnanand v. UOI and Ors.(T.A. No. 4157 1986), Biswajyoti Ghosh and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. 1994 Vol. 1 ATI 488 and Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (O.A. No.104/2002) wherein it had been held that casual labourers, who had rendered 206 days in two consecutive years, were entitled for regularization. After considering the various contentions raised by the parties, the said O.A. was disposed of vide order at 27.05.2004, with the following obse...

Residents Welfare Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi51; 124(2005)DLT215

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner, Residents Welfare Association B Block Yozna Vihar seek directions to quash the allotment of a nursery school site by DDA to respondent No. 5.2. It is stated in the petition that the said allotment violates the right of life and liberty of the residents of the area for the reason, establishment of a nursery school at the site would cause nuisance to the residents thereby adversely affecting the quality of their life. It is stated that the respondent No. 5 in all probability would violate terms of the lease.3. A cooperative society named Planning Commission Cooperative House Building Society was allotted 54 acres of land. It carried out development as per the notified and sanctioned lay out plan. The colony was called Yozna Vihar. 540 residential plots were carved out. They were allotted to the members of the society. A nursery school site located in Block-B i.e. site in question, was one, amongst various sites for public utility which was ear marked i...

Smt. Swaran Kaur and anr. Vs. Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT484

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioners own property bearing No. 95-B and 95-B/1 (95-A), Sant Nagar, New Delhi. The two plots admeasured 200 Sq.Yds. and 135 Sq.Yds respectively. The colony Sant Nagar is an unauthorized colony stated to have been regularized on 13.2.1979.2. It is stated in the petition that post-regularization, layout plan was prepared to show the various plots and other public utility sites. It is stated in the petition that plot No. 95-B and 95-A are clearly shown as residential plots in the layout plan3. It is further stated in the petition that on 10.9.1981 fresh layout plan was sanctioned. In this plan also the two plots were shown as residential plots.4. Post-regularization, for purposes of providing facilities, DDA levied development charges. Petitioners paid the same as per receipts annexed as 'Annexure-P.3' to the writ petition. A building each stands constructed on the two plots. The buildings are assessed to property tax. Property tax receipts as also receipts to...

infosys Technologies Limited Vs. K.T.L. Infosys Limited and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 123(2005)DLT529

Anil Kumar, J. 1. This is a suit of plaintiff for permanent injunction against infringement of his trade mark/corporate name 'Infosys' and for rendition of accounts and payment of damages against defendant2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff contending that 'Infosys Consultants Pvt. Ltd.', was incorporated on 02.07.1981 in the State of Maharashtra and shifted its base to the State of Karnataka in 1992. Its name was changed to 'Infosys Technologies Pvt. Ltd.' on 21.04.1992 and was converted to a public limited company on 02.06.1992.3. The plaintiff contended that the word 'Infosys' was coined by the plaintiff in order to distinguish its business and goods and the plaintiff is maintaining its corporate identity under the said name and its products and services are sold in the market all over the world under the said trade mark. The word 'Infosys' by virtue of its inherent distinctive and extensive use has become distinctive of plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers all over the world i...

Sewa Hotel and Resorts and Ishu Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi32; 124(2005)DLT421

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The two petitions reflect a very shabby and shoddy working of the Delhi Development Authority.2. M/s. Sewa Hotel and Resorts, a registered partnership firm responded to the advertisement issued by DDA to auction plot No. 10, Pitampura Community Centre, notified as a three star hotel site. At the auction held on 3.6.1997, its bid in sum of Rs. 6.84 Crores was the highest. Rs. 1.71 Crores were deposited on 3.6.1997 itself at the fall of the hammer. Balance amount was paid in the first week of September, 1997. On 10.9.1997 possession was handed over. On 1.6.1998 the perpetual lease was executed.3. Petitioner, M/s Ishu Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd. likewise responded to an advertisement issued by DDA for auctioning plot No. 7, Pitampura Community Centre, notified user whereof was a restaurant-cum-commercial complex. At the auction held on 29.2.2000 its bid in sum of Rs. 1,31,05,000/- was the highest. It deposited Rs. 40 lakhs on date of bid. Balance amount of Rs...