Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2005 Page 3 of about 196 results (0.021 seconds)Emerson Process Management Power Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
2. Service Tax demand is in relation to supply of electrical control system for GAIL's UP Petrochemicals Project. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the supply was in terms of a works contract for manufacture, installation and commissioning of the specified equipment and it is well settled (Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara- (T) that a work contract cannot be divided and part of it subjected to service tax. Learned Counsel also points out that the demand has been issued without service of any show cause notice.3. Prima facie appellant's contract appears to be a works contract not rather than composite contract for supply of goods and services. This Tribunal's decision in the case of Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, appears to cover the present case in favour of the assessee. In view of this, requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery is stated till the disposal of the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Chandrashekar (Huf) Vs. Asstt. Cit, Circle 4(1)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2006)5SOT960(Delhi)
These appeals are by the assessee directed against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Bangalore, dated 10-2-2004.We have heard both sides and perused the records. The assessee-HUF declared capital gains on sale of plantation land and claimed exemption from taxation contending that the assets sold was agricultural land and accordingly was not a capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Apart from capital gains other income/loss was also declared in the returns for the relevant years. For the assessment year 1995-96 original return was filed belatedly and was reaularized by issue of notice under section 148 of' the Act. For the assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98 original returns filed were processed under section 143(1)(a). Subsequently notices under section 148 were issued to reopen the assessments.Thereafter the assessments were completed by the assessing officer denying the claim of the assessee.On ap...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neeru Arora Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT90
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In these Petitions the challenge has been laid by the Petitioners to the remand Order passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi without deciding the question of whether the Petitioners were at all liable for payment of property tax.2. The Petitioners are members of the East End Apartments Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The Respondent/MCD had issued a letter dated 27.3.2000, which is Annexure R1, under Section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 for fixing the consolidated Ratable Value at Rs. 13,01,03,550/- with effect from 1.4.1999. This document appears to have been filed for the first time in these proceedings. Annexure R2 is a letter dated 18.12.2002 addressed to the Petitioner stating therein that ''the proposed consolidated Rateable Value of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- of the entire Society was confirmed ex-parte vide Assessment Order dated ... due to non-furnishing of requisite information/documents''. The Additional District Judge has...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Union of Inida (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 124(2005)DLT334; 2005(84)DRJ387
R.S. Sodhi, J.CRL.M.A.9783/2005:1. This application has been moved for impleading Gurbax Singh @ Buchi, Yudhvir Singh, Pritpal Singh & Daljit Singh Chaggar as parties to this petition. Application is allowed and disposed of.W.P.(CRL) 1288-89/2005 & CRL.M.A.7968 and 9782/2005:2. W.P.(Crl.) 1288-89/2005 have been filed with a prayer to quash F.I.R. No. 370/2005 dated 30.07.2005 and also to direct investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation in complaint of the incident which took place outside the property, B-15 B, Mansarovar Garden on 30.07.2005. The petition also prays for compensation on account of harassment, humiliation pain and injuries caused to the petitioner and his family members. The petition also prays for adequate security to the petitioner and members of his family.3. The allegations made in the writ petitions were that on 30.07.2005 a police party of the Special Cell barged into the house of the petitioner, assaulted the petitioner and members of his family, caused dam...
Tag this Judgment!Ashi P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Western Railways) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(3)ARBLR450(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT329
R.C. Jain, J.1. This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'The Act') praying for a direction on respondent no.1 to file the arbitration agreement contained in Agreement No.W-634/12/2/14 dated 25.8.1989 and for making a reference of the disputes and differences between the parties to arbitration and for a direction on respondent no.2 to appoint the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause.2. The petitioner was awarded work contract for manufacture and supply of 2,50,000 Prestressed Monoblock Concrete Sleepers at a total cost of Rs.2,12,10,000/- only. It appears that the manufacture of the sleepers was not undertaken by the petitioner all agedly owning to the non-availability of suitable site for carrying out the work of manufacturing the sleepers. The contract of the petitioner was short closed vide a communication dated 27/30.3.1992. According to the petitioner, the short closure of the contract was illegal and invalid, which has entitled th...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR297(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. By this judgment, I would dispose of Suit No. 35/1994, Suit No. 1055/94 and Ex.200/2000 as they all are based upon same facts between the same parties and give rise to the same questions for consideration of the court.2. In exercise of the powers conferred upon, the General Manager (E), Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking in terms of the Arbitration clause contained in the tenders of purchase order No. ST(SP-I)/TE-1873/1594 dated 31.1.1990 and additional purchase order No. ST(SP-I)/TE-1873/1686 dated 19.2.90, appointed Sh. O.P. Anand as sole arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the disputes which had arisen between the parties. M/s. Victor Cable Industries Ltd. had raised certain claims against the department and the department had also raised claims. The parties gave consent for enlargement of the time up to 30th September, 1993 and the arbitrator vide his award dated 29.9.1993 made and published his award. After the arbitrator filed the award in this court on 7.1....
Tag this Judgment!Aviat Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Magna Laboratories (Gujarat) Pv ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2006Delhi115; 127(2006)DLT300
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. By this common judgment I would dispose of the above six transfer petitions filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as the common question of law based on somewhat similar facts arise for consideration of the court in all these cases.2. It is not necessary for the court to note facts of each case as reference to the case of Aviat Chemicals Ltd. transfer petition No. 9/2005 would be sufficient for the purposes of deciding the real controversy between the parties. Wherever the facts in regard to any of the transfer petitions need to be referred separately I would mention them. The plaintiff in the suit filed a suit being owner of the registered trademark MVI. The said trademark Along with the goodwill and reputation was stated to be assigned by defendant No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff vide assignment deed dated 26th March, 1996 for a valuable consideration. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lic Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Pearl Developers (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: IV(2006)BC152
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at Yogakshema, Jeewan Bima Marg, Bombay with its area office at Lakshmi Insurance Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The shares of the plaintiff are held by LIC, UTI, ICICI and IFCI and the company is engaged in the business of advancing loans for the construction/purchase of house/flat or extension thereof as well as providing short term construction finance to builders. Sh. B.P. Trikha is the Area Manager of the plaintiff company at New Delhi who has been duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff and to do all other necessary acts in that regard. The power of attorney has been executed by the Managing Director of the company in pursuance to resolution of Board of Directors of the company dated 27.10.1992. 2. Defendant No.1 is a private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act...
Tag this Judgment!Golden Peakock Overseas Limited Through Its Constituted Attorney Mr. S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ483(Del)
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,80,568.53 and for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in any manner or exporting any goods to the overseas buyers of the plaintiff.2. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is a 100% export oriented company having its works at Noida Export Processing Zone and it claims to be a highly specialised research and development cell, which works continuously to improve the existing and developing new products to cater to the quality conscious international markets. According to them their goods are universally accepted in United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa, Taiwan, Hongkong, China, Australia and U.S.A. etc. The plaintiff is also an ISO 9001 : 2000 registered company. According to the plaintiff it was dealing with the defendants for the last over 15 years and claims that the defendants have been virtually set up and developed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to procure the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Bansal Vs. Nyay Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Limited
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The complaint of the petitioner seeking refund of the amount paid by him towards the booking of a plot of land to the respondent on the latters representation that it was a registered society and the land has been allotted to it was dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.2.2005 passed by the District Forum being pre-mature on the premise that the land in question is subject matter of acquisition proceedings which have been challenged by way of a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. 2. In our view the complaint should not have been dismissed as pre-matured as the petitioner was seeking refund of the amount received by the respondent on misrepre-sentation that it was the owner of the land and this amounts to unfair trade practice. Pendency of the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings before Allahabad High Court did not render the complaint as pre-mature as this circumstance alone was sufficient to deal with the complaint of the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!