Delhi Court January 2006 Judgments

Jamshed M. Pandey and anr. Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Dev. Ag

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC245; 2006(87)DRJ222

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal 7.6.2005, copy of which is Annexure P-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the judgment and decree of the DRT-I Delhi dated 19.6.2003 in OA 237/2000.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Petitioner No.1 is a Director of petitioner No.2 which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioner No.1 is also a guarantor of petitioner No.2 which has been held liable for the decretal amount jointly and severally.4. It appears that the petitioners took a loan in respect of which the DRT Delhi passed an order dated 19.6.2003 allowing the claim of respondent No.1.5. By that decree the DRT directed the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,58,36,919.00 with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the defendants. The petitioners were held jo...

General Insurance Corporation of India and Oriental Insurance Company ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT115

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellants filed an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent directed against judgment and order dated 19th February, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in CW No.552/78.2. According to learned counsel for the Appellants there are three issues that arise in this appeal. Firstly, whether the categorization of Respondent No.1 as a Senior Assistant with consequential benefits of enhanced pay and status was correct and proper; secondly, whether Respondent No.1 is entitled to interest on the payments said to be due to him and thirdly whether he is entitled to costs as awarded by the learned Single Judge.3. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellants does not press this because it is submitted that Respondent No.1 has since retired and the judgment has been given effect to. As such this issue is completely academic.4. Insofar as the question of payment is concerned, the learned Single Judge has awarded interest at 6% per annum on ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. DolphIn Canpack Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)50

T.S. Thakur, J.1. In its return for the assessment year 1998-99, the assessed claimed to have received share application money of Rs. 62 lakhs. Confirmations of the persons in whose favor the shares were issued were also filed apart from evidence to show that the share capital was paid by cheques in all the cases. The Assessing Officer, all the same, asked for certain further information and called upon the assessed to explain why the amount mentioned above be not added back under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The assessed submitted a reply, which did not find favor with the Assessing Officer, resulting in the addition of the amount indicated earlier to the taxable income of the assessed. In an appeal preferred by the assessed against the said order, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied upon judicial pronouncements to hold that the burden to prove the identity of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions lay upon the assessed. Havi...

Kamani Oil Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC55

1. The appellant imported and cleared a consignment of Sunflower oil in July, 1999. The customs duty payable on it was paid through DEPB licence, a valid way of discharging duty liability. Subsequently, in December, 2003 a show-cause notice was issued, inter alia to the appellant alleging that the DEPB licence had been obtained by fraud and for that reason the payment of duty made in 1999 was not valid. The appellant was, therefore, directed to show cause why the duty unpaid should not be paid and penalty imposed on him. The said notice invoked proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act for justifying the delayed issued a show-cause notice.2. In the adjudication proceedings, it was the submission of the appellant that it had purchased the DEPB credit for valid consideration and it was not aware of or involved in any fraudulent activity whatsoever. It was, therefore, contended that proviso to Section 28 has no application to the present case and no duty or penalty could be recovered from...

Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Ministry of

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant - importer has challenged the final findings dated 4.2.2003 by the Designated Authority and the impugned notification issued on 1.5.2003 under Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act imposing anti-dumping duty and has prayed for annulling the final findings and the notification imposing duties and seeking modification of the notification to the extent of the products manufactured by the domestic industry or to vary the anti-dumping duty corresponding to the different categories and grades.2. On 6.8.2001, the designated authority initiated the investigation on the basis of the petition filed by M/s. SPL Ceramics Ltd., M/s. H&R Johnson India Ltd. and M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd. The designated authority notified its preliminary findings by notification dated 3.12.2001 with regard to anti-dumping investigations concerning imports of vitrified/porcelain tiles originating in or exported from China PR and UAE. Public hearing was held on 2.7.2002 to hear the interested...

Shyoram Yadav Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ143CAT

1. By virtue of the present original application, appl icant, who is a Constable, has assailed an order passed by the respondents on re-consideration on 6.6.2005 declining him the offer of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Executive in Delhi Police.2. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police on 15.3.1998. In the year 1994 he was falsely implicated, as alleged, in a criminal case pertaining to corruption charges vide FIR dated 13.7.1994. In Delhi Police, appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) is governed by Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment), Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appointment Rules') where out of 50% of promotion quota, 10% of posts shall have to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to be held by SSC from amongst the Constables, Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors with minimum five years of service. Applicant, on notification of the posts of Sub-Inspe...

Dy. Cit Vs. Central Government Employees

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on 20-6-2002 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 5-3-2002 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1998-99. In this appeal the revenue has taken the following ground of appeal: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 72,00,000 which was only a provision pending revision and there is no tenet under the Income Tax Act wherein unascertained liabilities could be allowed as a deduction.2. Facts of the case leading to this ground of appeal briefly are that as per the audit report for the year ended 31-3-1998 the assessee had provided for a sum of Rs. 72 lakhs under the head 'Salaries and wages', pending revision. On further enquiry the assessing officer learnt that this liability had been provided for in relation to wage revision implemented with effect from 1-7-...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Bhagwati Printers (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)102TTJ(Delhi)480

1. The appeal is by the Department and the cross-objections are by the assessee. They arise out of the block assessment made on the assessee pursuant to the search carried out in his premises under Section 132 of the IT Act on 23rd June, 1999.2. At the very outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee raised an additional ground to the following effect: 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the block assessment order dt. 31st Aug., 2001 passed under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the block assessment order has been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 158BE of the Act and is therefore, illegal, bad in law and nullity. 2. That the AO erred on facts in imposing levying surcharge on the income-tax payable pursuant to the block assessment order.In the application for admission of the additional ground, it has b...

Joint Cit, Special Range-30 Vs. Pramod Bhasin

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT72(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the revenue and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXV, New Delhi dated 10-2-2000 relating to assessment year 1996-97. The only effective ground raised by the revenue in this appeal reads as under : "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer as perquisite; on account of expenses on Pension Plan (Rs. 99,382) paid by the employer on behalf of the employee." Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a foreign national working as Managing Director of GE Capital Services India. The assessee filed the return of his income on 28-6- 1996 declaring total income of Rs. 1,70,14,850 comprising of income from salary of Rs. 1,71,39,570, income from capital gains of Rs. 1,24,720 and income from other sources of Rs. 15,241. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer required the assessee to show cause why the contribu...

Sunil Kumar Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT605; 2006(87)DRJ244; (2006)IIILLJ67Del; 2007(1)SLJ446(Delhi)

ORDER The competent authority is pleased to terminate the services of the following employees who were engaged on purely adhoc basis with immediate effect. They accordingly stand realized in the afternoon today:-Serial No. Name Designation1. Shri Sri Ram Mann AC-III2. Mrs.Madhuri AC-III3. Shri Sunil Kumar Asstt. Store Keeper4. Shri Brij Kishore Tiwari Dresser5. Shri Sumer Singh Roneo Operator6. Shri Shiv Saran Sharma Dak Messenger7. Shri B.S.Gyrang Security GuardSd/-(S.A.Ahmed)Asstt. Manager (P)ALL CONERNED.COPY TO:1.Deputy Manager (Accounts), DSMDC, New Delhi with the request that their salary may be released after receipt of No dues certificate from personal cell.2. Officer in charge concerned3. Sr.P.A. to GM (P&A;)4. Sr.P.A. to CM (T&P;)5. Personal file (s)Sd/- (R.D.Upadhyay)True CopyCOPY TO:1.Deputy Manager (Accounts), DSMDC, New Delhi with the request that their salary may be released after receipt of No dues certificate from personal cell.2. Officer in charge concerned3. Sr.P.A. ...