Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Asian Alloys Limited and Mr. Pawan Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC383

1. All the four appeals have been argued together by the parties relying upon the complete record placed in Excise Appeal No. 3742 of 2003 and are therefore disposed off by this common judgment.2. These two appeals are preferred against the order of the Commissioner dated 09.09.2003, determining that the central excise duty of Rs. 4,21,34,053/- was leviable on the goods removed clandestinely to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) as per the ledger account of the appellant unit and ordering the said amount to be paid under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, determining that the unit should also pay under the said provision, a further, central excise duty amount of Rs. 1,21,76,522/- on 49275.32 kgs. of hosiery knitted fabrics, which were found short in comparison to the balance recorded in the bond register, determining that the appellant unit should pay central excise duty of Rs. 23,49,22,178/- on the fabrics manufactured by the unit on job work, imposing penalty of Rs. 28,92,32,7...

Margra Industries Ltd. and Mohan Vs. C.C. and Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue that is referred to the larger bench in this case is as follows: i) Whether despatch of the adjudication order by speed post amounts to a valid service under Section 153(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence of proof of actual delivery of the speed post? ii) Whether simultaneous affixing of the order on the notice board while dispatching it by speed post is sufficient compliance of Section 153(b) of the Customs Act? 2. The relevant facts that needed reference were that the assessee in the given cases filed an appeal within the statutory time of appeal from the date of receipt of the order by them and the department raised a preliminary objection from entertaining the appeal on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal.3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the statutory provisions as envisaged in Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962 is very clear in as much as that the order has to be physically served upon the appellant. It is his su...

P.P. Jewellers (P) Ltd., P.P. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)187

1. These three appeals filed by the assessees belonging to one group are direct appeals filed against three separate orders passed by the Assessing Officer Under Section 158BC for the block period and since some common issues are involved therein, the same are being disposed of by this single consolidated order.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the cases belonging to the group of M/s P.P. Jewellers including all the following three assessees in the present case:Status : Private limited companyDirectors : (i) Shri Pawan Gupta, R/o A-13, C.C. Colony, New Delhi, R/o BD-23, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi.Address : 2708, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (ground floor).Nature of business : Trading in gold, silver and precious stones and manufacturing of ornaments on job work basis against theStatus : Partnership firm.Partners : Shri Kamal Gupta - 75% Smt. Ratan Devi - 25%Address : 1178, Kucha Mahajan...

Biswaroop Roy Choudhary Vs. Karan Johar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT458; 2006(33)PTC381(Del)

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. These Orders shall dispose of the Plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the trademark/title Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (hereinafter referred to as 'KANK') and from making any adverse statements against the Plaintiff. The application has been filed in this Suit for permanent injunction; for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the Defendants under the impugned trademark/title; and for a decree directing the Defendants to deliver-up all material pertaining to the impugned trademark/title for the purpose of destruction.2. The Plaintiff asserts that he had applied for registration of the trademark/title KANK on 17.5.2005 under the Trade Marks Act in Class 41. The Registrar had ordered its advertising on 20th June, 2005, which occurred on the Journal dated February 15, 2006. Thereafter, on 23.6.2005 the Mahoorat of the film had ta...

National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. Vs. Novavision Electronics (P) Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: IV(2006)BC135; 132(2006)DLT140; 2006(91)DRJ746

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The present suit has been filed under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a decree in the sum ofRs. 57,78,585.86 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 17% p.a. with effect from 01.01.2002 pendente lite and future till realisation.2. The plaintiff, M/s. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi and various regional/branch offices all over the country. The suit has been signed, verified and instituted by Shri Hemraj Singh, Deputy General Manager (Law), who is the Principal Officer and the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff Corporation and as such duly authorised to file the same. The plaintiff is a government enterprise engaged in the development and growth of small scale industrial units in the country and is a...

Okhla Industrial Estate Association Vs. M.C.D. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT9

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.W.P.(C) 10618/2006Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Arora, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, Mr. B.L. Wali, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. Issue notice to respondent No. 3 returnable on 11.8.2006.The second respondent had filed its counter affidavit dated 12th July, 2006. Learned Counsel for the respondent MCD produced a compilation of documents and original records, on 20.7.2006.CM No. 8077/2006 (exemption)Allowed subject to just exceptions.CM No. 8076/2006 (Stay)1. With consent of counsel for the parties, the application for interim relief was heard on 20th July, 2006. Learned Counsel for the MCD relied upon the compilation of documents and also produced the original records. After conclusion of hearing, he made the official records available to the Court, on 24th July, 2006. The second respondent had filed counter-affidavit on 12th July, 2006. 2. The applicant/petitioner in the writ proceeding is an Association comprising ...

Kumar Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR265(Delhi); 132(2006)DLT667

Manju Goel, J.1. Suit No. 2478-A/2001 is an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short 'The Act') for directing respondent No. 2-Mr.Som Dev to file the Award and proceedings in the arbitration between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA'). The petitioner contended that the petitioner intended to challenge the Award. The Award in question was made on 5.10.2001. The application under Section 14 of the Act was filed on 25.10.2001. On 19.12.2001 objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act was filed, which was registered as is 4279/2002.2. The dispute between the parties was over the contract for construction of Convenient Shopping Centre at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi which was granted to the petitioner vide Agreement No. 9/EE/ND-X/DDA/88-89 between the petitioner M/s Kumar Construction Company and the DDA dated 25.10.88/25.11.88. The petitioner had to file a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator. The respondent/DDA appo...

Jigyasa Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ371; 132(2006)DLT408; 2006(92)DRJ594

ORDER No. 673/02/2005-CUS.VIII DATED AUGUST 2005 HAS BEEN ISSUED AGAINST SHRI RAJESH AGARWAL UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE CONSERVATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING ACTIVITIES ACT, 1974.9. From a reading of the grounds of detention it appears that a reference has been made to detention order F. No. 673/02/2005/Cus VIII, dated August 2005, issued against Shri Rajesh Aggarwal. Evidently, there is no such order and the detaining authority according to their affidavit admits this to be a clerical error but no corrigendum or addendum has been issued. Obviously, the detaining authority has not cared to read the order before passing the order of detention.10. Grounds of detention under attack in the petition may also be quoted as under:5. While questioning Shri Ravindra Rajurkar, an officer of your Banker viz., United Western Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on 16.07.04 it also came to light that you used to come and tender the CDFs and other documents along with foreign currency. ...

Sanjay Dogra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4113; 132(2006)DLT52; 2006(92)DRJ225

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner Sanjay Dogra filed the above petition through his wife Smt. Poonam Dogra praying for quashing of impugned detention order bearing file No. 673/18/2004-Customs-8 dated 30.11.2004 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA' Act). Petitioner prayed for a writ of habeas corpus, to be set at liberty.Petitioner claims to have been picked up by Officers of DRI from his residence, where after he was formally arrested and produced before the ACMM, New Delhi on 8.5.2004. Petitioner and his associate's statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act had been duly recorded. Following this, the petitioner had been placed under arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act for fraudulent availment of export incentives. Petitioner was granted bail on 7.7.2004. Following the impugned order of detention on 30.11.2004, the appellant was arrested and kept in dete...

Brigadier Man Mohan Sharma (Retd.) Frgs Vs. Lt. Gen. Depinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR133(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The applicant is a retired Army Officer. When the applicant retired in the year 1985 from the Army, he launched his own publication, namely, M/s. Trishul Publications of which he is the sole proprietor. It was earlier known as Dattatreya Prakashan and was owned by somebody else from whom he purchased the business interests therein.2. The respondent is also a retired Army Officer who retired from service in the year 1988. He is the author of book titled 'IPKF in Srilanka'. This book was published by predecessor in interest of the applicant, namely, Dattatreya Prakashan. For this publication, an agreement was entered into between the applicant and the respondent in September, 1991. Second edition of this book was published in May, 1992 by applicant's publication M/s. Trishul Publications. The applicant acknowledges that this book was first published in November, 1991 and was appreciated for the excellent production that it was. Major 'English Dailies' took out stupendous...