Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Darshan Singh and Sons (Huf) Vs. Mcd and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT416

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Darshan Singh and Sons (HUF) owns property No. E-25, South Extension Part -I, New Delhi.2. With a view to provide affordable and hygienic accommodation to foreign and domestic tourists, the Central Government formulated a scheme as per which residential buildings could be used for providing boarding and lodging to tourists. It was a term of the scheme that the person availing benefit of the scheme should have his/her residence in the building. The scheme was called 'Paying Guest Residential Accommodation'.3. Vide letter No. Trav.14(1)/91 dated 17.12.1993 petitioner obtained permission to use property No. E-25, South Extension Part-I for keeping paying guests. Permission was for a period of 5 years.4. As per the petitioner when the scheme was in force, the Central Government decided that Government of NCT Delhi should be the regulatory body to grant approval under the Scheme for those who wished to avail benefit under the scheme or wished to continue under the sc...

Society for Employment and Career Counselling (Regd.) and anr. Vs. Cha ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 129(2006)DLT351

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in the present set of writ petitions and by and large facts are near identical. I would be referring to additional facts qua petitioners of WP(C) No. 16691-92/04 as some additional facts need to be stated for adjudication of said writ petition.2. For most of the petitioners this is the third round of litigation. Earlier two rounds were fought when firstly the sponsoring authority i.e. Department of Higher Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi withdrew sponsorship and the second round was when DDA refused to consider the societies for allotment of land. Needless to state, petitioners won the first two rounds. Consequence is that aforesaid events have delayed consideration of case of petitioners for allotment of a plot of land.3. The writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 3188/06 has brought a representative action for its members and as such is not claiming any specific relief for itself. A declaratory relief is prayed that societ...

S.D. Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.E.S.U. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT26

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. A complex set of facts have been woven by the parties in the 4 captioned writ petitions and thereforee before noting the issues which arise for consideration in the 4 writ petitions, it would be advisable to note the relevant facts.2. On 25.9.1967, Late Shri Ram Prakash obtained perpetual leasehold rights in his favor from DDA in respect of property bearing municipal No. B-87 Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi.3. He constructed an industrial building on the land. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking held a license to supply electricity in Delhi under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948. Late Ram Prakash applied for 2 electric connections. One was for light and the other was for power. The 4 captioned petitions concern the sanction taken for industrial power being K. No. 14-ZK/521706. Load sanctioned was 73.73 KW.4. The facts at this stage as are a little hazy but they are otherwise unconnected with the dispute but need t...

Krishan Kumar Bangur Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas83(Delhi); 2006(88)DRJ680; [2006]72SCL334(Delhi)

ORDER1. The appeal is dismissed.2. In addition to the penalty imposed by the Jt. DGFT, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on each Directors of the company is also imposed.3. The Jt. DGFT, Kolkata to initiate recovery proceedings against the company and all Directors.(May D. Kem)Addl. Director Generalof Foreign Trade10. It is well-settled that a decision has to be self-contained. It cannot be added to or improved upon by learned Counsel for the Respondent. It is also manifest that the Order merely recites the ipse dixit that the Director of a Company is responsible for completing the export obligations.11. If authority is required for the first proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision on Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi : [1978]2SCR272 , paragraph 8 of which reads as follows:8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and ca...

Tika Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT689; 2006(88)DRJ718

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 1st January, 2002 passed in OA 397 of 2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') by which the petitioner's OA was dismissed.3. The Tribunal's order dated 1st January, 2002 arose in the following circumstances:-(a) One Shri Radhey Shiam Bansal, who was working in the Central Hindi Directorate in the Ministry of Education, filed a civil writ petition No. 905 of 1974 in this Court, challenging his reversion/demotion in seniority. While examining the merits of the pleas of petitioner's case for reversion and mutual transfer, this Court in the case of Radhey Shiam Bansal Versus Union of India & Others in writ petition No. 905 of 1974 came to the finding that there was no foundation for plea based upon a mutual transfer and Radhey Shiam Bansa...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Illac Investment (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)687

ORDER1. The respondent-assessed had for the asst. yr. 1989-90 disclosed in its return sum of Rs. 4,75,000 received as share application money. The AO added the said amount to the taxable income of the assessed under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the identity of the subscribers had not been established. In an appeal filed by the assessed against the said order, the CIT(A) held that the assessed had satisfactorily established the identity of the share subscribers. The view taken with the AO was, accordingly, reversed. The Tribunal has in a further appeal filed by the Revenue before it placed reliance upon the decisions of this Court in CIT v. Antarctica Investment (P) Ltd. : [2003]262ITR493(Delhi) and CIT v. Sofia Finance Ltd. : [1994]205ITR98(Delhi) held that the respondent-assessed had discharged the onus by reference to the material produced to establish the identity of the subscribers. The Tribunal has observed:On going through the various orders to which referen...

Andhra Petrochemical Ltd., Sasol Vs. Designated Authority and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These four appeals which have been filed under the provisions of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the notification and the final findings, by which anti-dumping duty was imposed on acyclic alcohols specified in the notification, exported from the countries mentioned therein and imported into India at the rates specified in the corresponding entries shown in the table contained in the notification, to the extent that the respective appellants have felt aggrieved against the impugned final findings and the notification issued on the basis thereof by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, and 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, 1995.2. In its final finding, the Designated authority had come to the conclusion that acyclic alcohols (Oxo Aloch...

Indian Graphite Manufacturers Vs. Ministry of Finance, Designated

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is filed on behalf of domestic industry challenging the findings of the Designated Authority dated 9.2.2003 in so far as they relate to USA, Italy, France, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany, recommending discontinuation of anti-dumping duty on graphite electrodes (UHP) exported to India from the subject countries and withdrawal of duty on graphite electrodes (NPG) originating in and exported from China by M/s. Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co. Ltd. (Producer) and Liao Yang Carbon Factory (Producer and exporter) and Lioning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co. Ltd., (Trader) and recommending reduction of anti-dumping duty in case of Tianjin Jinghai Carbon Plant (Producer) and exported through Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co.Ltd. (Trader) and notification No. 101/2003-Cus. dated 7.7.2003 and notification No. 102/2003-Cus. dated 7.7.2003 giving effect to the recommendation of the Designated Authority.On the basis of the complaint filed by M/s. Indian Graphite Manufacturers...

Bhawana Motors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC418

1. The stay application and appeal are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected on the ground that the appellant did not make pre-deposit ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The submission is that the appellant is working as a driver on a monthly wage of Rs. 4,000/- and has no financial position to make the deposit. It is also being contended that the appellant's activity did not come within the scheme of rent-a-cab which attracted service tax.3. In view of the financial hardship pleaded, the case is required to be heard without insisting on pre-deposit. In order to facilitate the same, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the case is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits....

Syndet India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, M/s. Syndet India (Pvt.) Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of 'Bullet' brand Detergent Cake, has challenged the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur, dated 24-12-2004 before us.2. In this case, the appellants had filed a Classification List (14/94-95) w.e.f. 1-4-1994 and started payment of duty @ 30% on clearances. Later, they filed a revised Classification List (33/94-95) w.e.f. 23-5-1994 and 4-7-1994 in respect of the same item classifying SSI exemption as provided under Notification No. 1/93, as amended. They paid duty at concessional rate subsequently from 24-5-1994, but against the approved classification list (14/94-95) under which they were required to pay duty at tariff rate i.e @ 30%.s 3. A show cause notice was issued to them alleging that they had no right to switch over from paying full rate of duty to concessional rate as per Clause inserted under Para 4 of Notification No. 1/93 vide Notification No. 59/94, dated 1-3-1994. A differe...