Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Indian Herbs Research and Supply Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)786

1. These five appeals, three by the Revenue and two by the assessee, involve some common issues and the same, therefore, are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. First, we shall take up the Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1990-91 being ITA No. 1747/Del/1997 which is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Dehradun, dt. 2nd Jan., 1997.3. In the solitary ground raised in this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the additions of Rs. 1,03,348 and Rs. 3,26,003 made by the AO on account of sales promotion expenses.4. The assessee-firm in the present case was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of ayurvedic veterinary medicines during the year under consideration, i.e., asst. yr. 1990-91. In its return of income filed for the said year, expenditure of Rs. 1,03,348 was claimed to have been incurred by it on presenting steel glasses and morning sets to distributors and stockists for keeping stocks of its products ...

Mr. Gatakala Venkateswarlu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 128(2006)DLT1; 2006(87)DRJ451

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of a recovery claim on account of the failure of the respondents to take necessary steps for forwarding the application of the petitioner for compensation to the United Nations Compensation Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UNCC').2. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and shifted to Kuwait in 1980. The petitioner was working as the Financial Controller in Alghanin Industries when Iraq occupied Kuwait in August, 1990. The petitioner claims that he and his wife had to leave behind all belongings and through Jordan came to Bombay in September, 1990. On normalcy being restored in Kuwait, the petitioner returned in June, 1991 but during this period from September, 1990 to June, 1991 was unemployed in India.3. The UNCC was authorised to go into the claims for compensation of residents of Kuwait. Procedures were prescribed for making such claims. ...

Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. National thermal Power Corpo ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR449(Delhi); III(2006)BC575; 129(2006)DLT224; 2006(87)DRJ465

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No.8683/1993 & is No.2004/1995 (under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The NTPC, the respondent No.1 awarded a contract to the petitioner for the 400 KV Transmission Line Tower Package for Rihand STPP, Kanpur-Etah and Kanpur - Kanpur Lines in terms of the award letter dated 7.12.1984, accepting the petitioner's proposal dated 27.4.1984. The terms of the Agreement between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause 26.6.1. Disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the Arbitration Clause and nominated Shri J.C. Jain as the Arbitrator. Respondent No.1 was called upon to appoint their Arbitrator vide letter dated 20.3.1992. Respondent No.1 failed to appoint its Arbitrator within the stipulated period of sixty (60) days as per the Arbitration Clause and as a consequence thereof the petitioner vide its letter dated 7.7.1992 called upon the President of the Institute of Engineers (India) to nominate the Arbitrator. The Institute of ...

Vinod Singh Vs. Smt. Phutori Devi (Since Deceased) Through Her Lrs.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(87)DRJ567

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this suit for specific performance and injunction filed by the plaintiff, following prayers are made: (a) Pass a decree for specific performance in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to obtain lease deed from the office of the Delhi Development Authority and thereafter execute proper and requisite sale deed for transferring lawful and marketable title free from all encumbrances, right of ownership in respect of plot No. 37 area admeasuring 334 sq.mts.Sector-10, Dwarka Residential Scheme Dwarka, New Delhi. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct that in case if the defendant fails, neglects, refuses or otherwise does not carry out the directions as prayed above, all such acts and things be carried out by any of the officials of this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.(b) That in case if for any reason this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not ...

Rajpal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT664

1. Rule D.B. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner who was working with CRPF as a constable applied for leave in July, 2001 to visit his ailing mother. The petitioner had been granted 10 days leave from 11th July, 2001 to 22nd July 2001 but according to the petitioner he had eventually reported at the transit Camp in Jammu in the month of February 2002 where he was informed that his services stood terminated. The counsel for the petitioner has averred that the petitioner was seriously ill and was suffering from Tuberculosis of spine while his wife was suffering from epileptic fits and the petitioner's new born son died and those are the reasons for his prolonged absence. The case of the petitioner is that he had been sending leave applications and presumed that since no response were forthcoming from the respondent leave must have been granted. The Respondent has contended in the counter affidavit that a notice...

Cogent Silver Fibre Pte Ltd. Vs. Noble Fibre Technologies Inc. and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi292; 127(2006)DLT707; 2006(87)DRJ583

A.K. Sikri, J.1. In this suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, declaration and cancellation of documents and permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, the plaintiff has filed is No. 7410/2005 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking ad interim injunction. Vide order dated 20th September, 2005, ex-parte injunction was granted to the plaintiff in this application. Aggrieved by this ex-parte injunction order, the defendant No. 1 has filed is No. 9273/2005 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC praying for vacation of the aforesaid injunction order. According to the defendant No. 1, suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 is without any cause of action and further even the requisite court fee has not been affixed. On this premise, the defendant No. 1 has filed another application i.e. is No. 9274/2005 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the suit against the defendant No. 1. All these applications were ...

Lords Homeopathic Laborites Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Lissy Unnikunju and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ243

Markandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.05.2005. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts have been set out in detail in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The Respondent / workmen (writ petitioners) had filed the writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 21.11.2002 whereby the learned Court awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per year aggregating Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 5. The petitioners were working with the respondent and their services were terminated with effect from 17.1.1997. They raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the termination was illegal and granted compensation to the workmen.6. Aggrieved, three of the workmen concerned filed the writ petition whic...

Delhi Development Authority Through Its Director (Housing) Vs. Shri Ra ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 127(2006)DLT665

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant has preferred an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against a judgment and order dated 14th August, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing CWP No. 655/2001 filed by the Respondent. We find merit in the appeal and are of the opinion that it should be allowed.2. The controversy in the present case is rather narrow and concerns the cost payable by the Respondent for a flat allotted to him.3. The Respondent's mother (his predecessor in interest) registered herself under the 5th Self Financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1982. She was issued a letter on 26th December, 1991 allocating a category II flat in her name in Jasola, Block-7 on the third floor. The tentative cost of the flat was indicated as Rs. 5,15,400/- and the schedule of installments was as follows: -Installments AMOUNT DUE DATE FIRST Rs. 128850.00 31.01.92SECOND Rs. 103080.00 31.07.92THIRD Rs. 128850.00 31.01.93FOURTH Rs. 103080.00 31.07.934. The full t...

Bhilai Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. I heard both sides and perused the record. In the impugned order, the appellant has been denied Modvat credit of Rs. 2,59,543/- and impoqed penalty of Rs. 30,000/-.2. The facts leading to passing of the impugned Order are that the appellant is a job worker for Indian Railways. Under the terms of contract of job work, the Railways supplied to the appellant, the main inputs steel items. The procedure followed is that the Indian Railways placed an Order directly on the Bhilai Steel Plant of SAIL. The appellant visits the steel plant and collects the supplies directly.The documentation is that the invoices were issued in the name of Railways and the same endorsed to the appellant. Material moving gate pass is issued also permitting the appellant to receive and move the material. Thus, this is a case of supply of inputs directly to the job"worker (tje"arpgllant) for use in the production to be carried out.3. The ground taken in the impugned Order for denying credit is that this transact...

Annaco Food Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned SDR. None appeared on behalf of the appellants, in spite of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants.2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand is confirmed by denying the benefit of small scale exemption notification on the ground that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods under the brand name of another manufacturer.3. The contention of the appellants in the appeal memo is that, that they are clearing the goods under the brand name 'Pariwar Butter Bite'.The 'Pariwar' is the brand name, whereas 'Butter Bite' is the variety of biscuits. Therefore, it cannot be said that 'Pariwar' brand name belongs to some other manufacturer. The appellants also pleaded that in the classification declaration, they subsequently mentioned that the goods manufactured by them were cleared under the 'Pariwar' brand name and, therefore, no suppression c...