Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Saini Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)10STT362
1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned order are that the respondent, M/s. Saini Associates addresses letters to Commissioner Central Excise, Chandigarh intimating that they are giving service of book keeping to their clients and seeking clarification as to whether such service attracted service tax. On 10-12-04, Superintendent (Service Tax) confirmed that they are liable to pay service tax as their service fell in the category of "business auxiliary service". A photocopy of the legal provision relating to tax on "business auxiliary service" was also enclosed with the letter. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against that order. The impugned order was passed in that appeal.3. The objections of the Revenue against the impugned order are that the letter of Superintendent is not appealable and that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits (that no...
Rajmahal Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)6STT11
2. The appellants' filed this appeal against the Order-in- Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present case, the demand of service tax was confirmed on the ground that the appellants are providing the services of Mandap keeper.3. The contention of the appellants is that they are running a hotel and hotels are exempted from payment of service tax. The contention is that the appellants are not giving the hall for organising social functions. They are giving the halls on rent along with rooms only and the halls have been provided not for any consideration of social functions etc. The appellants also pleaded that demand of service tax is confirmed after taking into consideration the gross amount received by them, therefore, the amount should be treated as cum-tax amount.4. The contention of the revenue is that appellants are renting out the halls for organising marriage and other social functions for consideration. Revenue relied on the findings of the adjudicating authori...
Lunarmech Machinenfabric Ltd. and anr. Vs. Usf Filtration Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT169; 2006(33)PTC47(Del)
J.P. Singh, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two petitions (i) Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 214/2005 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 18.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No. 297/2003 (originally filed in High Court in March, 1995) & (ii) Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 482/2005 against orders dated 24.12.2004, 24.1.2005 & 17.2.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi in the same suit. 2. I have heard Mr. S.K. Mehra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as defendants) and Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr. Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs), and have gone through the impugned orders and copies of all the documents of the trial Court placed on the files. 3. Perusal of the files shows that the suit is more than 11 years old. It was filed in the High Court on the Original side. Later it was transferred to the District Courts on enhancement of jurisd...
Ex. Gunner (Gd) Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 134(2006)DLT425
Reva Khetrapal, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21st January, 2000 discharging the petitioner from Army service under the provisions of Army Rule 13 Item No. (iii) (v) of the table annexed to the said Army Rules.2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 22nd August, 1995 against Unit Headquarters Quota enrolment by the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp. On completion of his basic military training at the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp, he was posted to 99, Field Regiment C/o 56 APO on 5th August, 1996. However, a case of malpractice in enrolment came to light in the year 1996. A court of inquiry was held to investigate the circumstances under which the alleged recruitment related malpractice took place in the Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp during the period 1994-1995. The General Officer Commanding, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area directed, vide para 7 (b) of his directions dated 7th July, 1997, that a...
Shri Harish Chand Gautam Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 130(2006)DLT733; 2006(90)DRJ502
S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for transfer of investigation of case vide FIR No. 477/2005 registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park, North-East, Delhi to the CBI. 2. Notice of this petition was served on the respondent and in response thereto the status report has been filed and the same has been perused by me. 3. For appreciating the dispute raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts and the same are given here-in-below:4. The petitioner was married about 14 years ago. He has three children, two daughters and one son. His only son was found missing from the house on 18.10.2005 after return from the School at 3 PM. The missing report was lodged by the petitioner at 1:00 AM during the night intervening 18-19.10.2005 with Police Station Mansoravar Park. On the basis of said missing report, FIR No. 477/2005 under Section 363 IPC was registered at Police Station Mansarovar Park at 7:15 PM on 19.10....
ShafiquddIn and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ766
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 15.2.2006. By virtue of the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the three accused persons, namely Shafiquddin (petitioner No. 1), Sarfaraz and Mohd. Suleman (petitioner No. 2) guilty of having committed offences under Section 323/34 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 16.2.2006 the convicts were given benefit of probation. They were directed to be released on probation on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs 5000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when they are called upon during the period of one year from the date of entering into the bond and in the meantime they were to keep peace and be of good behavior. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the accused Shafiqudeen and Suleman.2. The accused had been tried for the commission of offences under Sec...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.G.F. (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: [2006]285ITR142(Delhi)
The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 27-4-2000, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in I.T.A. No. 4915/Delhi of 1999 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The assessed is a non-banking finance company and is running a business of hire-purchase, finance, lease of assets/vehicles. As a part of its business the assessed leased out vehicles to third parties (hereinafter called 'lessees'). In respect of these leased vehicles, the assessed claimed depreciation at 40 per cent. in terms of section 32 of the Income Tax Act read with rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules and Appendix I to the Rules.3. The assessing officer by his order dated 12-3-1999, allowed depreciation at 20 per cent. while holding that the assessed had given the vehicles on lease to third parties, which is not the same as running them on hire by the assessed.4. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessed preferred an appeal which was taken up for consideration by the Comm...
Ram Parshad Rohatgi Vs. Surinder Kumar Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ674
A.K. Sikri, J.1. By means of this suit the plaintiff seeks partition of property bearing No. G-41, Radhey Puri, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as'the 'suit property'). Prayer for permanent injunction is also made to the effect that the defendants be injuncted from selling, transferring, alienating or creating or creating third party interest in the suit property and also from raising any construction on any portion of the suit property. These prayers are made on the basis of the averments to the effect that the plaintiff and the father of the defendants, namely, late Shri Nand Lal Sharma, were the joint owners of the suit property. They were close friends and as they were living in rented accommodation, they decided to buy a plot of land bearing No. G-41, Radhey Puri, Delhi from International Land and Finance Company Ltd. (for short, 'colonizer'), who were carving out the place in the colony known as Radhey Puri. Both of them paid Rs. 20 to the aforesaid company and later on approximat...
Babu Ram Sagar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: (2007)ILLJ930Del
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on daily wage basis with M/s. Delhi Khadi and Village Industries Board with effect from December 5, 1987. Thereafter, he was taken as Chowkidar on regular pay-scale of Rs. 750-950 plus admissible allowances on March 23, 1988. He had been serving in the aforesaid post when on a complaint lodged by another. Chowkidar Mr. Ajab Singh on November 6, 1991, his services were terminated. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner brought a lady in the office and on the complaint by someone to the Police Control. Room, the police party came to the office of the management. According to the management, this has been such an ugly incident that the good-will of the management was at stake. It is also mentioned that at that relevant time, office of the management was at ISBT and the location of the office was sensitive from the security point of view and Delhi Police had also emphasized from time to time to take care to avoid such inci...
Kavita Vs. Govt. of Nct and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ39
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.Allowed subject to all just exceptions.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 21.11.2005 to the applicant / complainant's husband.2. The brief background leading to the filing of this application is that an FIR No. 486/2006 was registered at Police Station Srinivas Puri under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the complainant's father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband. An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the three accused. This Court, while disposing of that application, by an order dated 4.10.2005, allowed the same in respect of the father-in-law and mother-in-law but rejected the anticipatory bail application insofar as the husband of the complainant was concerned. While rejecting the application of the husband, this Court observed that the issue of alleged recovery of articles of Stridhan can be investigated through his custodial interro...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »