Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Del)474; 2006(92)DRJ283; [2007]289ITR397(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. These are two writ petitions raising the same issue and question of law. The challenge in both the petitions is to the similar orders dated 14th March, 2006 passed by Respondent No. 2 directing the Petitioners to have special audits conducted under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant for the assessment year 2003-04.2. We find no merit in any of the writ petitions and, thereforee, dismiss them. For convenience, the facts relevant to the WP (C) No. 9538 of 2006 of M/s Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. are being mentioned.3. The Petitioner is a residuary non-banking company and is engaged in the business of deposit mobilisation. According to the Petitioner, it follows the mercantile system of accounting and maintains regular books of accounts including a cash book, bank book, journal book, general ledger, debtors ledger, creditors ledger, etc. It follows the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and in accordance there...

Gaurav Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ763; 2006(113)ECC54; 2006LC54(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short `the Act') directed against the final order bearing No. 818-829/05-Cus., dated 9-13th May, 2005 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. C/388/03, C/387, C/389 to 397/03 and C/549/03 directed against the order in Original bearing No. AKR/CC/ICD/TKD/31 & 32/03 dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed the first appeal filed by amongst others, the appellant against the order in Original dated 30th June, 2003.3. The facts in brief are that one M/s. Suren International Limited was found to be illegally importing tin, nickel and zinc by concealing these metals in consignments declared as of aluminium scrap. Excess quantities of aluminium scrap and import of copper scrap in place of aluminium scrap was also there....

University of Delhi Vs. Shri Sushil Kumar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ397

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 19.4.2002 passed by Labour Court No. III, Karkardoom Courts, Delhi, whereby it held that the respondent was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity in service. 2. Briefly facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was illegally terminated by the petitioner on 16.4.99. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court in the following terms:Whether the services of Sh. Sushil Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect 3. In the statement of claim filed by the respondent before the Conciliation officer, respondent took the stand that he was employed by the petitioner as peon with effect from 15.1.1996 and was lastly posted at Campus La...

Shri Virender Singh Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ647

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the Award dated 27.06.2002 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner by Labour Court- X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.2. Petitioner alleged that he worked with the management as Charge Mate for more than three years. He reported for duty on 22.2.1987 and Executive Engineer told to him that his services were no longer required. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages. Following disputes were referred for adjudication by the appropriate government to the Labour Court:Whether the termination of services of Sh. Virender Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 3. The stand of the respondent in written statement was that workman had been working with the management since December 1985. However, workman got entry in the office by fraud on the basis of a forged appointment letter. As soon as department got suspicious ...

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. the Appellate Authority Under the Paym ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)ILLJ928Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act whereby the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of Controlling Authority and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 76,380/- to the respondent No. 2 towards gratuity.2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent No. 2 was terminated from service by the petitioner after holding an enquiry into the misconduct of the respondent No. 2 on 30.1.1968. He challenged this termination after 10 years in 1978. By an award dated 6.11.1995, the Labour Court held the termination of the respondent No. 2 as illegal. However, Labour Court observed that keeping in view the date of birth of the respondent No. 2 being 4.3.1933, he reached superannuation on 31.3.1991. He was, thereforee, entitled to back wages w.e.f. 19.8.1978 till 31.3.1991. The Labour Court did not award any rel...

Shri Vikram Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT36; 2006(92)DRJ759; 2007(207)ELT373(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short `the Act') directed against the final order bearing No. 818-829/05-Cus, dated 9-13th May, 2005 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal) in Appeal Nos. C/388/03, C/387,C/389 to 397/03 and C/549/03 directed against the order in Original bearing No. AKR/CC/ICD/TKD/31 and 32/03 dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi.2. We have also dismissed another appeal filed by one Balwan Sharma (Custom Case No. 06/2006) arising out of the same impugned order vide a separate order. The issues raised in the appeal being the same, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal as well. However, like in the case of Balwan Sharma we have examined the facts pertaining to the case of the present appeal and are, thereforee, proceeding to note the same.3. The Appellant is an employee of Haryana Police wh...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Chattarbhuj Bhushan Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ171; [2007(117)FLR929]

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner MCD has challenged the validity of award dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi, directing the management to give posting with continuity of service with full back wages to the respondent. 2. Briefly, facts are that the respondent was working as plumber with the petitioner and he was posted in Ward No. 89, Punjabi Bagh. The workman alleged that he went to report for duty on 26.7.1993 and 27.7.1993, but he was not allowed to do duty by Hari Lal, a Mali, working in the park, who was also officiating as Garden Chaudhary. He made a written complaint to the authorities. On 27.7.1993, he was transferred from Punjabi Bagh to Pitam Pura ward No. 28 by the Assistant Director(Horticulture)-I Rohini Zone. The respondent did not join at Pitam Pura alleging that the action of the petitioner, in transferring him, was unjustified and malafide. the transfer was punitive and stigmatic. The appointing autho...

Suren International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT494

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short `the Act') directed against the final order bearing No. 818-829/05-Cus., dated 9-13th May, 2005 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in Appeal Nos. C/388/03, C/387, C/389 to 397/03 and C/549/03. This appeal before the Tribunal was preferred against the Order-in-Original bearing No. AKR/CC/ICD/TKD/31&32/03 dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakhabad, New Delhi.2. By the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed the first appeal filed amongst others, by the appellant against the order in Original dated 30th June, 2003.3. The facts in brief are that the Appellant was found to be illegally importing Tin, Nickel and Zinc by concealing these metals in consignments declared as of Aluminium scrap. Excess quantities of Aluminium scrap and import of Copper scrap in place of Aluminium scrap wa...

Dayawati Gupta Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 3.8.2001 the complaint of the appellant seeking quashing of electricity bill raised by the respondent including penalty amount was dismissed solely on the ground that the appellant has no locus standi to file complaint but at the same time gave direction to the respondent to look into the genuine grievance of the person in whose name the electric connection stands installed. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Admittedly there is an electric connection No. 2223902 x 401 DL installed at the premises 7/32, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. The appellant has been occupying the premises for the last 50 years and has been paying electricity bills after the death of her brother-in-law in whose name the electricity connection stands. 4. It is not the person in whose name the electric connection stands who is a consumer .If the electricity supply is being used by a person as an actual beneficiary, which i...

Nagori Tiles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC298

1. The appellant company has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals-II) made on 19.8.04, upholding the order of the adjudicating authority allowing sanction of refund of Rs. 99,319/-, by way of granting credit in their CENVAT account register and adjusting/appropriating the balance amount of Rs. 50,880/- against the government dues, and has prayed that the said amount of refund should be made in cash and not by credit in CENVAT account as ordered by the adjudicating authority.2. By the order-in-original, dated 6.1.2000, a demand of Rs. 1,50,199/-was confirmed against the appellant and penalty imposed by the Joint Commissioner under the provisions of Central Excise Act and the Rules of 1944. By the appellate order, dated 13.3.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit the duty or Rs. 1,50,199/- and equivalent amount of penalty imposed as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was rejected on 23.5.01 for non-compliance of provis...