Delhi Court March 2006 Judgments

Slocum Investment P. Ltd. (Now Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. IT(SS) A. No. 411/Del/04 is an appeal by the assessee and IT(SS) A.No. 45/Del/05 is an appeal by the Revenue. Both these appeals arise out of the order of learned CIT(A)-III, New Delhi dated 30/11/2004. They are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First we shall take up the Assessee's appeal i.e. IT(SS) A. No: 411/Del/04 for consideration. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal by the Assessee are as follows. The Assessee is a company. M/s HCL Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s HCLCL'), M/s Shiv Nadar Investment Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SNIPL') and the assessee company were promoters of a company by name, M/s HCL Consulting Ltd. The main objects of these three companies were making investments in various companies. The investments are in the form of contribution to share capital of various companies. They promote companies and hold shares of companies promoted. The shares are held by these companies in order to have power ...

Mrs. Mohini Mehra Vs. Malibu Estate (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ531

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. An usual and a stock plea of wrong noting of the date in the case diary and on the file cover set up as a defense to show sufficient cause for non- appearance on a date of hearing which led to the passing of ex parte decree is under judicial scanning in this appeal before us.2. The appellant has got this appeal argued through her husband whom she appointed as her Attorney for the purpose. The appellant's Attorney has demolished the stand of the respondent bit by bit and has established that the respondent had set up a frivolous plea of wrong noting of date in the case diary as a ground for setting aside the ex parte decree against it. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it would be necessary for us to detail out the brief background of the case which led to the filing of this appeal. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:-3. The appellant on 7.2.1996 had entered into an agreement with the respondent for purchasing an apartment bearing No....

Sh. Mohan Chandra Bhatt Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(89)DRJ88

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing of order of promotion dated 2.2.2000, whereby, the petitioner stood superseded by the third respondent a junior officer.2. First, the facts in a nut shell:-3. The petitioner entered the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (in short, ITBPF) on 10th December, 1973 as a direct entry officer. His initial appointment was as a Company Commandant, but by September 1989 he had reached the level of Commandant. After about a decade two vacancies arose in the Force for the post of Additional Deputy Inspector General, a selection post. The petitioner along with seven other persons was within the zone of consideration. Accordingly, a DPC was convened in the month of Jan. 2000, and the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the said post with the other candidates. For the said purpose the ACRs of the eight incumbents were placed before the DPC for consideration. The result...

Sh. Subhash Chander Kathuria Vs. Sh. Umed Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi193; 129(2006)DLT144; 2006(88)DRJ543

Vijender Jain, J.Caveat No.29/2006Notice discharged.RFA(OS) No.23/2006 & CM Nos.4502 & 4503/20061. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.1.2006 dismissing his suit for specific performance as barred by limitation. 2. The appellant had entered into an Agreement with the respondents on 27.7.1988 whereby the respondents had agreed to sell to the appellant their agricultural land measuring 34 bighas 1 bids was in Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, for consideration of Rs. 20,92,656/-. Rs. 2 lacs was paid by the appellant to the respondents as earnest money and the balance sale amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the Sale Deed. It was stipulated in the Agreement to Sell that the respondents were to obtain No Objection Certificate from the revenue authorities and Income-tax clearance Certificate from the Income-tax Department before execution of the Sale Deed which was agreed to be executed wit...

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR236(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This writ petition calls in question the legality of a notice of demand and an order of attachment issued by the respondents for recovery of the outstanding income-tax dues from the petitioner. It is common ground that during the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents have through an order of attachment issued by them already recovered the entire amount of tax due and recoverable from the petitioner pursuant to the assessment completed against it. In that view, thereforee, the petition has indeed become infructuous as all other issues raised become academic once the demands stand satisfied and the petitioner has assailed the assessment order in appropriate proceedings before the appellate authority concerned. All the same, since the submissions at some length were made on behalf of both the parties as regards the procedure which the respondents have followed in making the recoveries, we may briefly recount the facts leading to the present controversy.2. Assess...

Mahaveer Mirror Industries and Vs. the Designated Authority,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The request for adjournment on behalf of M/s. Mahaveer Mirror Industries is declined by the separate order. Heard learned Counsel Mr.Ameet Singh, Advocate and Mr. Devender Kumar, Jr. Advocate for Designated Authority and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Chander Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the Domestic Authorities at length. All the appeals are filed against the Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. dated 12th November, 2002 issued by the Central Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 [hereafter referred to as 'rules'] imposing anti-dumping duty on Float Glass of thickness 2mm to 12 mm (both thickness inclusive) of clear as well as tinted variety (other than Green glass) but not including processed glass meant for decorative, industrial or ...

G.M. Telecom, Bsnl Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC129

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The impugned order has demanded the' amount of about Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellant G.M.Telecom, Chandigarh on the ground that there was delay in payment of Service Tax during the period April, 97 to Dec, 97 in respect of service tax on telephone services rendered by the appellant. The contention of the appellant was that the procedure for collection of telecom charges as well as deposit of service tax remains stipulated in the circular by the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts and the same had been accepted by the Central Board of Excise & Customs also. This was the procedure followed till March' 99. The contention of the appellant, therefore, is that there was no delay in making payments, as payments had been made in terms of an agreed accounting procedure. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on Tribunal's Final Order No. 4/2003-NB(A) dt.2-6-2003 in Appeal No. ST 25/2002-NB(A) filed by the present appellant.2. Th...

Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. In this case a notice purported to have been issued on 25-9-1989 was adjudicated on 25-11-2004.2. The submission of the Id. Counsel is that the appellant had not received any such notice and the delay of 15 years has placed the appellant in a position where it cannot answer the notice inasmuch as the records of the relevant period are not available.3. Prima facie, there is merit in the submission. The requirement for pre-deposit is waived and recovery is stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Anand Darbari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ663

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Since the questions of fact and law in both the writ proceedings are overlapping, they were heard together, with consent of counsel for parties. In the first writ proceedings, namely, W.P.(C) 2832/2002, (hereafter `the first petition'),the petitioner claims the relief of payment of retiral dues/gratuity and other amounts together with interest. In W.P.(C) 3669/2003 (hereafter referred to as 'the second petition'), the relief claimed is for a direction to quash an order dated 19.5.2003, by which the Central Government appointed an Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the charges against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of the Cement Corporation of India (hereafter called 'CCI'), in 1989. Upon expiration of his initial tenure, he was granted a further, extended tenure. The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Chairman and Managing Director, Airport Authority of India; it is an undisputed positi...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007ACJ527; 130(2006)DLT58; 2006(89)DRJ82; (2006)144PLR37

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Despite final opportunity having been granted, Counter Affidavit has not been filed. Hence opportunity in this regard was closed on 17.3.2006. As the factual matrix of the case stands uncontroverter, I proceed to decide the Writ Petition as per the asseverations made in the Petition.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent had responded to a tender floated by the Delhi Transport Corporation (D.T.C.) for providing Third Party Insurance Cover in respect of the entire fleet of buses owned by D.T.C. The tender was confirmed in favor of the Respondents circa 2000. From the year 2000 to January, 2005, no difficulties were encountered by the Petitioner and the Insurance Cover was renewed from year to year. However, in July/August, 2005 the Respondents prevaricated and circumvented their statutory responsibility by raising flimsy grounds for their refusal. The Petitioners had tendered a sum of Rs. 37,73,899/- (Rupees thirty seven l...