Delhi Court September 2005 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. P. Chander Sekhran

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of discrepancy in the calculations of the interest on the defaulted instalments made by the respondent in respect to the purchase of flat from the appellant, the appellant DDA has been vide order dated 30.8.1999 directed to refund Rs. 13,976.60 being the excess amount of interest charged on delayed payment along with Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order the appellant has directed this appeal. 3. According to the appellant the respondent committed as many as four defaults in making payment of instalments whereas according to the respondent he had committed only two defaults. The perusal of the records shows that the first demand letter was issued in December 1990 and the payment was made within one month but the appellant treated it as late payment or defaulted payment on the ground that the construction had commenced in the month of August 1990, whereas the fact remains that the draw of lot was held on 15.11.1990. It i...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Pankaj Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Two complaints were filed by the respondent, one was filed in the year 1996 and another was filed in the year 1997. Through the complaint in the year 1996 the respondent sought for installation of telephone connection at his residence. As the appellant had failed to instal the telephone inspite of having issued OB No. 54711054163 dated 7.3.1995, this complaint was allowed vide order dated 16.4.1999 directing the appellant to instal the telephone within 15 days. The telephone was installed on 31.3.1997 but neither the number was assigned nor there was any current in it. 2. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed another complaint in the year 1997 seeking direction to the appellant to provide number of the telephone installed at his residence as well as current in the same and compensation for the mental agony and harassment the respondent suffered. 3. There is no dispute that the earlier order passed by the District Forum was not complied with by the appellant....

Motherson Pudenz Wickmann Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 39,129/- and penalty of Rs. 45,129/-.2. The contention of the applicant is that in the show cause notice, the applicants are treated as Management Consultant and the Adjudicating authority also confirmed the demand of service tax as appellants are Management Consultant but the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the demand of service tax by tearing them as the Consultant Engineer. The contention is that scope of Consultant Engineer and Management is different. In view of these circumstances, we find that applicants had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the amount of service tax and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal The Stay petition is allowed....

Dr. Lal Pathlab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 49,251/-. The demand of Service Tax was confirmed by treating the applicant as Business Auxiliary Service. The contention of the Revenue is that they are engaged in promoting the service of their client by collecting the samples of human beings. The contention of the applicant is that as per the Section 65(106) of Finance Act, 1994 technical testing & analysis in relation to human beings or animal is exempted. The contention is that they are collecting the samples and also doing initial testing also. Further, tested samples were sent to Dr. Lal PathLabs Pvt. Ltd. As the appellants are conducting testing also in respect of samples. Prima facie, appellants had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of whole of the demand on Service Tax is waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The Stay petition is allowed. Order ma...

M.B. Enterprise Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT403TriDel

1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The contention of the applicant is that goods seized from their premises and the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods on the ground that there was no stickers to show MRP on the goods, therefore, they violated the Notification No.44(RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000. The contention of the Revenue is also that the goods in question are not the same goods, which were imported under the Bill of Entry, which were imported by the appellant.The contention of the applicant is that the goods are button/pencil cells and watch parts and they are legally imported into India and as per Notification No. 44(RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24-11-2000 at the time of clearance the MRP is to be written on the goods. The contention is that the goods were cleared from the Custom House under the proper documents. Therefore, subsequent to the clearance, the Revenue has no authority to seize the goods on the ground ...

Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT601TriDel

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand of duty was confirmed on the ground that appellant had cleared the scrap of capital goods without payment of duty.3. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is for the period June, 2000 to May, 2001. Prior to 1.4.2000, the Rule 57S(C) Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides the levy of duty on scrap of capital goods on which the credit has been taken. After 1.4.2000, there were no such provisions under the rules. The show cause notice was issued for invoking the provisions of Rule 57 AB of the rules. The contention is that provisions of the this rule only provide that in case of inputs and capital goods were removed from the factory, the manufacturer has to pay appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon. In the present case as the capital goods are not removed as such only the scrap of goods was cleared. Therefore, provisions of this rule are not applicable....

Vijay Kaushik Vs. Ito, Ward 38(4), New Delhi

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT461(Delhi)

These are the appeals of the respective assessees filed against the common order dated 26-10-2004 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi for assessment year 2001-02. The issue involved in all the three appeals are similar and the facts are also almost same with some difference in the case of the Hisar Vijay Laxmi Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Shri Vibbore Kaushik is the legal heir of the late Shri Balraj Kaushik. Shri Vijay Kaushik is brother of Late Shri Balraj Kaushik. The Hisar Vijay Laxmi Co-operative House Building Ltd. is also controlled by the same family and Mrs. Vijay Laxmi, Secretary and wife of Shri Vijay Kaushik who himself is the Pradhan of the society. The land purchased by the society earlier belonging to Shri Vijay Kaushik and late Shri Balraj Kaushik. All these appeals have been represented by the same counsel Shri C.S. Aggarwal and these appeals argued simultaneously. Therefore, for the sake of convenience a consolidated order is passed.The ground Nos...

Durga Devi @ Asha Rani Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT428; 2005(84)DRJ544

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Crl.Rev.P.364/2000 seeks to challenge the judgment dated 16.06.2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.17/92 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused persons of all charges.2. Brief facts of the case as brought out by the learned Additional Sessions judge are as follows:-'The case of the prosecution as per the challan filed in Court is that on 23.9.91 Smt.Durga Devi @ Asha Rani wife of Shri Raman Kumar, resident of 19, Youth Hostel, Club Road, Delhi, met S.I. Vijay Pal Singh and made a statement that his yonder Prem Kumar Dua who lives in H.No.1K-22A, N.I.T. Faridabad had come to her house at 11.00 p.m. On the night of 10.6.91 in a Maruti Gypsy No.DL-3C-A-4191 of white colour Along with his friend Vinod Kumar who lives in H.No.I-C-33A Sundra Colony, Bata Chowk, behind Petrolpump, Faridabad. There was another person with them whom her brother had represented to be a friend of Vinod Kumar who was a resident of Jaipur; that Vinod Kumar ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Birbal Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 124(2005)DLT349; 2005(84)DRJ540

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The issue that falls for our consideration in this writ petition is as to whether or not the respondent is entitled to payment of increment, which accrued on 1st March, 1996 despite the fact that the respondent stood retired from service on superannuation with effect from 29th February, 1996.2. The respondent retired from service from the Northern Railway Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi on 29th February, 1996 with basic pay of Rs. 3125/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2375-3500/-. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which correspond to similar provision in the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, the last working day of the respondent was 29th February, 1996 and on 1st March, 1996 the respondent stood retired from service and was not working on 1st March, 1996. The annual increment of the respondent which otherwise would have been due on 1st of March of the year would have accrued on 1st March, 1996 if it is held...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Abn Amro Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas582(Delhi); 124(2005)DLT137; 2005(84)DRJ593; [2008]81SCL443(Delhi)

R.C. Chopra, J.1. The Enforcement Directorate through Union of India has filed this appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against an order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which the order of the adjudicating authority was set aside. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that according to prosecution, respondent No. 4, a foreign company through respondent No. 3, and one Cliff Roy established respondent No. 2 M/s. Maple Leaf International in India. According to the appellant though this company was established and incorporated through Indian nationals but it was actually a company established and incorporated on behalf of the foreign company, respondent No. 4 for trading in imported gold in India. According to the appellant such a company could be established only with prior permission of Reserve Bank of India under Section 29(1)(a) of F...