Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Anurag Singh Vs. the State (Through Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(88)DRJ777

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. On 27.03.2006, when this matter was taken up for hearing, my learned predecessor had indicated in the order the broad arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. It was noted that the counsel for the petitioner had argued that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was only filed under Sections 201/120-B IPC which is bailable and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine or both. It was also noted that the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the investigation had been completed and a challan had been filed and from the material collected and during investigation, no offence against the petitioner is said to have been made out much less any non-bailable offence. It was, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. It was, however, contended to the contrary by the learned APP for the State who submitted that the petitione...

ig Technical and Economic Srvices Private Limited Vs. Aman Travel P. L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT624; 2006(89)DRJ246

R.S. Sodhi J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi, in Suit No. 275/2002 whereby the learned Judge has held that 'the suit under Order 37 CPC is based on the cheques, the original cheque dated 24.8.1999 issued by the defendant has been filed on record, the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation and no relief has been claimed which does not fall within the ambit of Order 37 CPC. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,77,155/- with interest @ 10 per cent from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree as the transaction is commercial in nature.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Civil Judge, are -The brief facts leading to the present application are that plaintiff filed a suit Under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code for recovery of Rs. 1,77,155/- along with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of filing the suit till passing the decree. The brief facts...

Shri Gagandeep Singh S/O Shri Deshpal Singh Vs. Shri B.R. Arya,

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT544

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed a suit praying for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, jointly or severally, from carrying on any business in the name and style of 'Perfection House' or its variations. In the suit, he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for a similar injunctive relief.2. In his written submissions, the Plaintiff has expressed the issue raised by him in the following words:The issue that arises in the suit and in the application is whether the defendants No. 2 and 3 who are the former partners of the partnership Perfection Silk and Saree Kendra, after retirement, can be permitted to use the trade name in any form or not.3. The grievance of the Plaintiff has arisen because Defendants No. 2 and 3 are using the premises bearing No. E-19, N.D.S.E. Part-I, New Delhi (owned by Defendant No. 1), for carrying on business under the name and style of 'Perfection House'. According to the Plaintiff this is impermis...

C.L. Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR595

1. This stay application is directed against order-in-appeal which has declined to interfere in the attachment order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants purchased a factory land from Rajasthan Financial Corporation. The Central Excise department had some confirmed demand against the old factory and the same was not paid by the original factory owner. The Central Excise department issued many notices to the appellants for recovery of the confirmed demand. The appellants replied them stating that they are not liable to pay the amount. The Revenue authorities vide notice of attachment dated 13-7-2005 attached the land and building of the appellants. Against this order the appellants preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who declined to interfere in the attachment proceedings.3. Learned Advocate submits that as per the attachment which has been executed by the authorities the auction of the same land and building is to take place on 19-4-...

Raj Khosla and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner has demanded service tax Rs. 6,93,695/- from the appellant alongwith interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100/- for every day subject to the amount not exceeding the amount of service tax of Rs. 6,93,695/- under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. In support of their stay application the applicant argued that the only mistake on their part is of not taking the registration of the changed premises from where they had started working. However, they have paid the service tax. They are taking input credit of the service tax paid on the telecom services for using the same for payment of service tax on their output service which falls under category of business auxiliary services. It was explained that they are getting telephone bills of mobile phone in their trade name or employees name and they had correctly taken the credit.3. It was argued for Revenue that the documents on which credit was taken are not in the name...

Akash Optifibers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)13STT211

1. M/s. Aksh Optifibers Ltd., are engaged in the manufacture of optical fibre cable and are engaged in research and development activities.They have developed e-governance and rural convergence concept titled as 'Gramdoot'. They have tested this gramdoot project and thereafter transferred technology to M/s. Aksh Broadband Ltd., under technological transfer agreement. According to Article 2.1 of the agreement, M/s.Aksh Optifiber Ltd., shall primarily assist ABL in setting up gramdoot project. In para 1.2.1 of agreement know-how is defined. Appendix I to the agreement required, AOL to enable to set up, operate and maintain a gramdoot kiosk on a commercial scale pursuant to this agreement.Article 3.1 of the agreement provides for the service and know-how provided by AOL pursuant to Article 2 and shall pay ABL the following consideration to AOL. (b) Rs. 30,000/- or Rs. 5,000/- per kilometre of cable laid for one gramdoot, whichever is lower for every gramdoot project set up beyond 500 gra...

Procter and Gamble India Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC646

1. The dispute is about valuation of Ariel brand detergent powder manufactured by the appellant. The issue is before us on remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under judgment in the case of Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd. v. CCE Bhopal 2. The appellant manufactures the aforesaid detergent in its factory near Mandideep near Bhopal, clears it in 25 Kg. (bulk) packing to M/s Industrial Enterprises (Detergent), Kanpur. At Kanpur, the detergent in bulk is repacked into smaller packs (20 gms. and 30 gms sachets). After repacking the detergents are sent to the appellant's depot for resale.3. The appellant had been claiming the valuation of 25 Kgs. packing based on cost of production. This claim was being accepted also by the Central Excise authorities. However, under show-cause notice dated 8.6.94, it was alleged that valuation was required to be correctly made based on the appellant's sale price for retail packs. The notice was issued by invoking the extended period as av...

Atm International and ors. Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These 5 appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original dated 4.8.2005 which confiscates the goods meant for export and imposition of penalty on the firm and partners of the firm.2. The issue involved in this case is that the appellants filed 10 shipping bills for export of goods. The said goods were cleared for export. Subsequently on investigation it was found that the appellants had forged Bank realization certificate and submitted them to the DGFT authorities for obtaining DEPB scrip. On this ground show cause notice was issued to the appellants for violation of Section 18(1)(a) of the FERA. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the appellants have violated the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, and hence, the goods are liable for confiscation. As the goods are confiscated under Section 113(d), penalties have been imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, hence, this appeal.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the re...

Shri Tariff Singh Dabas Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT565

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In the year, 1993, a notification was issued under Section 14 of the East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 for consolidation of holdings in village Kanjhawala. On 14.11.1996, draft Consolidation Scheme was announced by the Consolidation Officer in the village. After finalising the scheme, in the year 1998, repartition was carried out under Section 21 of the said Act. Petitioner demanded a plot on the Northern side of the village. His other family members also demanded a plot on the said side. Obviously, aim was for the entire family to be residing in adjoining houses.2. Consolidation Officer allotted plot No. 142/499 admeasuring 2 bigas and 2 bids was to the petitioner, but on the opposite side.3. On 30.6.1997, petitioner filed objections under Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of the Act against the allotment made. On 28.2.2000, the Consolidation Officer decided the objections and allotted another plot to the petitioner, which was again...

Govind Swaroop Chaturvedi Vs. Cm-md. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT679; 2006(88)DRJ736; (2006)IIILLJ950Del

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The Petitioner in these writ proceedings claims directions for release of pension as well as certain amounts due to him on account of Leave Fare Concession (LFC). 2. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent (hereafter called as `the Bank'). The bank as well as other nationalised banks introduced a pension scheme embodied, in Pension Regulations, under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 in the year 1995. The Pension Regulations (hereafter referred to as `the Regulations') entitled, inter alias by Rule 3(ii)(a) and (b) all employees and officials working in the bank and those who had retired on or after 1.11.1993 to pension subject to certain conditions. Regulation 3(ii) provided that such of the employees working in the organisation who exercised an option within 120 days from the notified date to become members of the fund and refund (within 60 days of the expiry of the said period of 120 days) the entire contribu...