Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

O.P. Sharma and anr. Vs. Delhi Financial Corpn. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ602

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition filed in the year 1993 has a long and chequered history. Respondent No. 4 Vashisht Enterprises Private Limited was sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs. 18.25 Lacs and a Soft Loan of Rs. 1.5 Lacs on 18.12.1984 by the Delhi Financial Corporation, respondent No. 1. Of the sanctioned term loan, a sum of Rs. 16,43,500/- was disbursed and of the soft loan, a sum of Rs. 1,13,500/- was disbursed. A mortgage deed was executed by respondent No. 4 company whereby the machinery in the plant of trie said company stood mortgaged to the respondent No. 1 Corporation. Simultaneously, a bond of guarantee was executed by five persons including the petitioner No. 1, Shri O.P. Sharma and petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Sharma, both of whom were stated to be its promoter Directors. The said five persons stood as guarantors for the repayment of the loan borrowed by respondent No. 4 company.2. As a result of default in repayment of the loan, a show cause notice under Section 29 of the ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner whereby penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act is set aside on the ground that the provisions of Section 11A is applicable to recovery to duty of excise whereas the issue in the present case is of payment of amount equal to 8% of the value of exempted goods as provided under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules.As the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act are applicable only in respect of short payment of duty whereas the payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not duty but an amount, therefore, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed....

Silicon Graphics Systems India Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)103TTJ(Delhi)220

1. These cross-appeals, filed by the assessee and the Revenue, arise out of CIT(A)'s order dt. 24th Oct., 2000 relating to asst. yr.1997-98. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri Piyush Kaushik, advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee, whereas Smt. Sangeeta Gupta, CIT-Departmental Representative, represented the Revenue.3. The assessee, namely, M/s Silicon Graphics Systems India (P) Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, in 1993. During the period covered under the asst. yr. 1997-98, it was carrying on the business of developing, manufacturing, selling and servicing computer systems and software. It also rendered technical assistance and services in connection with the use, purchase, sale, import, export, lease or distribution, license, design, manufacture of any. computer machines, etc. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed retur...

Acit Vs. Shri O.P. Chawla

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Since there is difference of opinion between the two members, we hereby refer the following question for the opinion of the Hon'ble President: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of material available before AO, at the time of initiation of proceedings Under Section 147 of the Act, the AO was legally justified in having reason to believe that income of the assessee, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment? (2) Whether the action of the AO to reassess the income of the assessee, in the facts and on the circumstances of this case, was based merely on the change of opinion and was, therefore, bad in the eye of law? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reopening of assessment was nor valid and as such the reassessment made was void ab initio and bad in the eye of law? 1. This appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 9...

Atik Ansari (In Jc) Vs. the State, Nct Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT463; 2006(90)DRJ290

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application for interim bail. It is alleged that 2.5 kgs of heroin was recovered from the petitioner. The percentage content of diacetylmorphine has been found to be 44.31% which comes to about 800 gms by actual content.2. Mr Pawan Sharma, who appears for the State, submitted that the principles applicable to the grant of regular bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would also be applicable even in the case of interim bail. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh : 1999(66)ECC335 and in particular he relied on paragraph 7 of the said judgment in which there is a remark that 'persons who are involved in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable and it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society'. It is further observed that such persons are a hazard to the society 'even if they are ...

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Hea ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT124

J.M. Malik, J. 1. Petitioner and one D.R. Verma are facing the criminal proceedings lodged by CBI. This is an indisputable fact that they are facing the identical charges. Both of them are employees under Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, the respondent in this case. The petitioner has prayed that he is also entitled to the same relief which was subsequently granted to his co-accused, D.R. Verma.2. Brief facts of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner was recruited as a Stenographer with the respondent on 11.12.1976. He was promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer and again to the post of Private Secretary. The petitioner was suspended on 11.01.1994, on account of pendency of one criminal case pertaining to CBI, which had nothing to do with the respondent. The petitioner was released on bail on 25.01.1994. The petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance up to 50% for a period of six months and same was revised to 75% w.e.f. 12.07.1994. Despite representation made by the ...

Raj Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(3)SLJ492(Delhi)

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 28th March, 2006 by which O.A. 1670/2005 had been dismissed. The controversy may be succinctly stated. Petitioner seeks to have the additional benefit of his past service for the period from 1.3.1979 to 19.1.1982 as a Legal Assistant in the Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, as petitioner had enjoyed the addition of 5 years as qualifying service in terms of Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition may be briefly noted:Petitioner joined as a Legal Assistant in the Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. He applied for being appointed as Public Prosecutor in CBI and was selected through U.P.S.C. and was posted as a Public Prosecutor on 22.1.1982. He became Senior Public Prosecutor on 5.1.1988, Deputy Legal Advisor on 21.9.1998 and ...

Sumit Singh Vs. Reckitt Colman of India Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complaint of the appellant seeking compensation against the sub- standard product known as Cuffs N Collar Dirt Remover manufactured by respondent No. 1. was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.5.2002 passed by the District Forum mainly on the ground that whenever any such like products become popular, there is every likelihood that spurious products are introduced in the market and in such a situation, respondent or the manufacturer cannot be held guilty for deficiency in service on selling spurious goods. 2. On the face of it, the impugned order suffers from inherent infirmity inasmuch as that the observations are in the nature of surmise and conjectures. The District Forum was required to only deal with the producet produced before it and to assess the evidence produced by the parties and not to give the benefit to the manufacturer that whenever any such like products become popular in the market then the possibility of spurious products being inducted i...

Cce Vs. Ishwar Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC231

1. This stay application is directed against order in appeal dated 28/03/2006 which set aside the penalties imposed on the respondents.Since, the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the stay application filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal itself taken for disposal.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are that the respondent's factory was visited by the officers of the Central Excise and on the physical stock being verified, found shortage of some finished goods on which duty was paid by the respondent immediately. A show cause notice was issued on 12/02/04 to the respondents i.e.subsequent to the debits of the duty involved. The adjudicating authority appropriated the amount of duty paid and also imposed penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal and also in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v.Commission...

M.G. Builders and Company Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Des Raj Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT147; 2006(90)DRJ576

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Two companies M/s M.G. Builders & Company Private Ltd. and M/s. Nippun Construction (P) Ltd., duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with their registered office at 105, X-21, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi and H-1, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi filed a suit for possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against Sh Des Raj Arora, respondent in the present appeal. The suit was instituted on the facts that appellant No. 1 is the perpetual lessee of property known as plot No. 2 Community Centre Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi and he had constructed a multi-storied Commercial Complex over the said plot. Similarly, Appellant No. 2 was the owner of the adjacent Plot No. 1 and he had also constructed a multi-storied building on that plot. The respondent is the perpetual lessee of plot No. 5 and had also constructed a multi-storied commercial complex over the said plot. The appellants have approached the defendant for providi...