Delhi Court April 2006 Judgments

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Amar Auto Works and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT376; 2006(89)DRJ459

J.M. Malik, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the DDA against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate dated 19th September, 1990. The indictment against the respondent/accused is that it was using premises bearing number 19-20 Corner, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was found that auto repairs under the name and style of M/s Amar Auto Repair was functioning there, in flagrant disregard of provision of master plan, which came into force on 1st September, 1962. According to which, the said property could be used only for residential purposes. Braham Parkash, Surveyor, DDA vide his report dated 15th March, 1984, proved on record as Ex.PW1/A, reported that the premises in dispute were being used for non conforming purposes, by the respondent a partnership firm. Show cause notices proved on the record as Ex.PW1/B, PW1/C and PW1/D were issued. In his cross-examination Braham Parkash conceded that he had not seen the house tax record. He could not say when the premises were ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jagdamba Chit Fund and Finance Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT580; 2006(89)DRJ548

J.M. Malik, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the DDA against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate dated 3rd August, 1992. The indictment against the respondent/accused is that it was using premises bearing number WZ-15/2, Raja Garden, New Delhi for the purpose of an office, in flagrant disregard of provision of master plan, which came into force on 1st September, 1962. According to which, the said property could be used only for residential purposes. Chander Parkash, Surveyor, DDA vide his report dated 19th May, 1984, proved on record as Ex.PW1/A, reported that the premises in dispute were being used for non-conforming purposes, by the respondent a partnership firm. Show cause notice Ex.PW1/B was issued. In his reply dated 22nd June, 1984, the respondent replied that the premises in dispute were being used for non residential purposes prior to the enforcement of master plan. Chander Parkash, appellant's own witness, PW1, could not say as to when non confirming ...

Delhi Golf Club Ltd.* Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]9SOT191(NULL)

ORDERG.S. Pannu, A.M.This is an appeal by the assessed against the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) in refusing to grant registration under section 12A with effect from 1-4-1989, as prayed for by the assessed.2. The background and facts leading up to the present proceedings can be summarized as follows. The assessed-company was incorporated in the year 1950 for the promotion of the game of golf. It applied for registration under section 12A in the prescribed Form No. 10A with Director (Exemption) on 31-3-1999 seeking registration with effect from 1-4-1989. In response, the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vide its order dated 9-6-1999 granted registration with effect from 1-4-1998. The DIT(E) did not grant registration from the date applied for, i.e., 1-4-1989 on the ground that the assessed could not reasonably explain the delay in seeking registration after a delay of 49 years one month and seven days. The matter was carried in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribun...

Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr. Inder Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi346; 2006(90)DRJ108

Gita Mittal, J. 1. By this order we propose to decide this application filed by the respondent whereby review of the order dated 28th September, 2004 passed by us has been sought. According to the respondent applicant, as the appellant failed to file duly corrected paper books, the present appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by an order passed on 6th May, 2002. The order passed by this Court was assailed by the appellant before the Supreme Court which had passed the conditional order dated 24th March, 2003 directing restoration of the appeal on the appellant's filing requisite number of paper books duly corrected in the High Court within four weeks from today. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the application states that the appellant has filed incomplete, incorrect and defective paper books and has failed to comply with the order of the Supreme Court. Even defects pointed out by the Registry have not been removed and consequently the appeal deserves to be dismissed in terms of the ord...

Food Craft Instt. Vs. Rameshwar Sharma and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT49; (2007)2LLJ350Del

Gita Mittal, J.1. These applications raised questions as to the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief to a workman on his application seeking grant of wages during the pendency of the management's challenge to industrial awards in favor of the workman directing his reinstatement into service. Inasmuch as counsels have urged identical issues of law, these applications are being taken up for decision together. A composite view with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court covering different aspects of this principal question has been required to be considered. Before proceeding to consider the individual fact situation and relief sought in these three applications, it would be appropriate to consider the general principles of law which have been evolved by the courts.2. The issue of permissibility of grant to interim relief to a workman in the nature of wages in petitions before either the Apex Court or the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I...

Sheel Agro Oils P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT31(Del)

J.M. Malik, J.1. The case of the appellant is this. The appellant purchased a consignment of 1135.265 metric tonnes empty Hydrogenated vegetable oil i.e. Vanaspati from M/s. Sheel Chand Industries under a high sea sale agreement. The Sheel Industries had imported the impugned goods from M/s. Health Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Colombo, Sri Lanka under SAARC Area Free Trade Agreement vide notification No. 26/2000 dated 1-03-2000. As the consignment was of edible oil meant for human consumption three samples were drawn from the consignment. The same was sent to Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad and as per the test report, the melting point of the vegetable oil in question was 42.5 degree centigrade. It is beyond the limit prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA). Since it was found to be adulterated, thereforee, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the appellant.2. In the meantime, the appellant also sent the sample provided by the dep...

Lord Chloro Alkali Limited, Ujala Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These four stay applications have been filed for staying the recovery of duty and penalties imposed on the applicants. Show cause notices were issued to the applicants alleging that M/s Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd., Alwar (formerly known as Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd) were engaged in the manufacture of Hydrogen Gas falling under sub-heading 2804.29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that they have floated three front companies namely M/s Alfa Hi-tech Gases (P) Ltd., M/s Ujala Gas and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Zen Gas and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. in the vicinity of their factory to compress and bottle the Hydrogen Gas purchased as a bye product by them during the manufacture of caustic soda with an intent to mis-use the SSI exemption in terms of Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 during the period from December, 2003 to December, 2004 by supplying Hydrogen Gas to front companies at a much lower rate than on which the hydrogen gas was sold by ...

Sara Services and Engineers Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order in original by which the Deputy Commissioner had directed the appellant to pay service tax amount Rs. 1,43,564/- and imposed penalty of the like amount under Section 76 of the Finance Act and also a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 77 of Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The learned authorised representative for the appellant has contended that earlier on 16-11-1998, a show cause notice was issued on an allegation that Varco was a dummy unit belonging to the appellant and it was alleged that management of Varco was controlled by the appellant. Management, documentation, production management and RD support was alleged to have been provided by the appellant to Varco.However, ultimately, Varco was recognised as a separate entity by a decision of the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Revenue issued show cause notice dated 1-7-2004 beyond the normal period of limitation in respect of the period from Ap...

Alfa Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that in this matter, duty amount as well as interest amount, as ordered by the Settlement Commission have already been paid. The dispute is whether payment of interest was made one day late. The intimation of the order is said to have been received by the applicant on 5th July, 2004. The payment has been made on 5th August, 2004. The question is whether the date of receipt of the order is to be excluded while computing the period of 30 days. The applicant, in our opinion, has made out a prima facie case for stay of recovery of the amount. The impugned order imposing penalty is therefore, stayed during the pendency of the appeal without any condition of pre-deposit. This application accordingly stands disposed of. The appeal will now come up for final hearing in its due course....

National Board of Examinations Vs. Dr. G. Anand Ramamurthy and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT627; 2006(89)DRJ311

Vijender Jain, Acting Chief Justice1. Admit.2. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are doctors having obtained degree in Masters of Surgery (MS). In their pursuit for still having post doctoral decree, they enrolled themselves with the National Board of Examinations for the Diplomat of National Board (DNB) in June, 2003. As per the Bulletin of Information and Application Form it was stated that examinations were held twice a year; (a) the written examination for primary will be held on Sunday following Second Saturday of June and December and Final on Second Saturday and Sunday at the specified centres. Just when they have finished almost three years and expected to appear in June, 2006, there was a change in the policy on 26.3.2006 when their discipline was not included in the examination notification published in the newspaper.3. The learned Single Judge has issued a mandamus to the appellant only to abide by and honour the curriculum contained in the bulletin of information as publicly held out b...