Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Mr. Navpreet Singh Bhattal Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Its ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ494

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has preferred the present appeal before us. The learned Single Judge while holding that the case was covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Renu Bali v. Delhi Development Authority 2006 I AD (Delhi) 127 upheld the payment raised by the respondent/DDA vide their letter dated 8.7.2003 whereby the DDA had decided to allot a flat in Vasant Kunj on payment of current cost of the year 1999-2000 and interest @ 7% per annum (compounded) for later period till the issue of demand letter.The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in Renu Bali's case (supra) with regard to Self Financing Scheme the Court has laid down certain guidelines and directions for the DDA to recompute the cost payable by the defaulting allottees of South Delhi flats. Mr. Vijay Kishan Jaitley, counsel for the appellant has contended that paragraph 57, Sub-clause ii (b) is relevant which has been ...

Shri Ilyas Azmi and anr. Vs. Directorate of Estates

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi44

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 14907-08/2006 and has challenged the same by filing the present appeal. The main grievance of the appellant is that he has not been given adequate time to take recourse under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act so as to challenge the eviction order which has been passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act. The appellant has also contended that vide letter dated 14th /17th July 2006, the Lok Sabha Secretariat had directed the Office of Directorate of Estates to keep in abeyance the eviction proceedings and, thereforee, any notice served by the Directorate of Estates under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act prior to 14th/17th July, 2006 was of no consequence.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The brief facts which are not in dispute inter-alia ar...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Moonlight Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against order in appeal dated 22nd June 2006 which set aside the order in original dated 14-6-2006. Since the issue involved in this case is in short compass, stay application filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal is itself taken up for disposal.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records.The issue involved in this case is that the respondent are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 72. They are availing the facility of Cenvat credit of goods. On the scrutiny of monthly return filed by the respondent in the month of March 2006, it was noticed by the authorities that the respondent have not paid the duty of the clearances by 31-3-06. There was a short payment of duty.The authorities directed the respondent to discharge the outstanding duty liability along with interest. The appellant complied with the direction of deposit of duty on 3-6-06. Despite this, the lower authorities initiated proceeding...

Cc Vs. Pidilite Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC479

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order in appeal dated 28^th February 2006 that set aside the order in original of confiscation of the goods imported by the respondent and also directed the authorities to refund the entire amount of the value of the goods seized and not the amount which was realised by the revenue during the auction.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent imported consignment of mobile sets. The said consignment was detained and seized by the authorities in October 2000, subsequent to investigation. A Show cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing to confiscate the seized goods and imposing penalty. The adjudicating authority in his order absolutely confiscated the seized goods and imposed penalty on the appellants. Appellant succeeded before the Commissioner (Appeal) against said order. During the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the lower authorities auctioned the consignment and sold the ...

En Ar En Computers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC565

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed these appeals against the common impugned order. In this case the demand is confirmed and penalty was imposed on the ground that M/s. Hardware & General Suppliers(appellant) manufactured the computer and cleared without payment of duty.2. The contention of the appellant is that they are only trading in computers and computer parts. They have purchased computers from the following concerns and sold the same to M/s. En Ar En Computers (P) Ltd. and other customers: The contention is that at the time of visit, there was no evidence which shows that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture or assembly of computers. The contention is that all the payments to their suppliers were made through bank draft and the appellant relied upon the certificate given by the bank which shows that the drafts were prepared in the name of above mentioned firms.3. The contention of the revenue is that on enquiry only one supplier was found i.e. M/s. Broadway C...

Punjab Paint Colour and Varnishes Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC447

1. The appellant challenges the order in appeal dated 30^th July 2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order-in-original dated 20.08.2001 by which the Deputy Commissioner confirmed demand of Rs. 1,24,873/- against the appellant in terms of Rule 57-I/57-AH of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, besides directing payment of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. The appellant has filed written submissions through the authorized representative for disposal of the matter.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of paints, enamel and varnish falling under chapter heading Nos. 27, 32 and 38 respectively of the Tariff Schedule. The appellant was availing modvat credit facility in terms of declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Rules on 29^th March 2000. The appellant submitted a letter bearing C. No.Ex-PP/99-2000/3205 dated 29^th March 2000 to the Superintendent, Central Excise submitting th...

Shri Om Prakash S/O Shri Sardar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Grievance of the applicants is directed against an order passed in compliance of Tribunal's order dated 12.12.2002 in OA-1939/2002 whereby their request for grant of ACP Scheme, while reckoning the service from 1997, i.e., the date of appointment as shown in the seniority list for Khallasi, has been turned down.3. Learned Counsel for applicants relied upon a decision of Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, A.P. and Anr. v. Shaik Abdul Khader 2004 (2) ATJ SC 23, to contend that for grant of pension the entire service of a casual worker on temporary status and 50% of the service on casual basis has to be reckoned as a qualifying service.4. Learned Counsel for applicant, referring to the combined seniority list of Mali and Mali Khallasi, would contend that the date of appointment of applicant No. 1 has been shown as 15.7.1977 and in accordance with the aforesaid seniority, it resulted in promotion of the app...

Vinay Bhushan Chandhok Vs. Vivek Bhushan Chandhok and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT510

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of two applications, one under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking of the defense of the defendants and for grant of a decree against the defendants on account of their failure to file written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condensation of delay in filing the written statement beyond the statutory period.2. The facts leading to the filing of aforesaid applications are as under:(i) Plaintiff in his application has averred that he had filed a suit against the defendants praying for the following reliefs:A. Grant a Decree of Possession in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants in respect of the 'suit premises' i.e. A-141, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 as per the site plan and issue an appropriate direction against the defendants to deliver peaceful and vacant possess...

State (Through Cbi) Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ964; 133(2006)DLT393; 2006(92)DRJ87

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2000 seeks to challenge judgment dated 3rd December, 1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent herein of the charges under Sections 302 and 376 IPC in case FIR Nos. 50/1996, Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, later transferred to CBI and re- registered as RC.1(S)/96-SIU.V/SIC.II/CBI/SPE/New Delhi.2. The facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are:. (2) That on 23.1.1996 Ms. Priyadarshini Mattoo (since deceased) hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' was residing with her parents at B-10/7098, Vasant Kunj. Prior to that the deceased had stayed in co-educational hostel of Institute of Economic Growth, University of Delhi, at the residence of her relative Capt. Ravi Kumar in home Nos. A-267, Rajouri Garden and at the residence of Lt.Col. (Retd.) S.K. Dhar at B-1/4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The deceased was murdered on 23.1.1996.(3) The deceased was a student of LL.B. at Universit...

Union of India (Uoi) Through Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(112)ECC338; 2006LC338(Delhi); 2007(207)ELT351(Del)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Union of India has filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for an appropriate writ of certiorari for setting aside an order dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs (DZ) in Compounding Order No.2/CCC(DZ)/SCM/2006.2. It appears that Respondent No. 1 had gone to London on a business visit. On his return to India on 11th August, 2004, he carried two pairs of diamond earrings and the allegation is that he tried to smuggle them by walking through the green channel when he was intercepted. According to Respondent No. 1, the earrings were given to him as a gift in connection with the marriage of his younger son and in view of the long journey undertaken by him, he was somewhat confused and through an oversight, he entered the green channel area. This incident occurred on 11th August, 20043. The Petitioner issued a show cause notice to Respondent No. 1 on 24th September, 2004 for violating the provisions of t...