Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Shri Kuldip Gandotra Vs. Shri Shailendra Nath Endlay and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi1; 2006(2)CTLJ183(Del); 2006(91)DRJ26

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 31.03.2004 and for possession in respect of Flat No. C-9/9551, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said flat').2. In the plaint, the plaintiff has averred that on 31.03.2004, an agreement to sell in respect of the said flat was entered into by the plaintiff as the intending purchaser and the defendant No. 1 as the intending seller. The said agreement was entered on behalf of the defendant No. 1 by the defendant No. 2 who held a general power of attorney in her favor. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 1 had acquired the said flat on allotment from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the same was a leasehold property. It is averred that the same was eligible for conversion into freehold on payment of the prescribed charges as per the policy of the DDA. It is further stated that the said flat was in occupation of a tenant who had been indu...

Shri Ujjwal SarIn Vs. Om Parkash Baldev Krishan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT19; (2006)144PLR5

ORDER XXXSUITS BY OR AGAINST FIRMS AND PERSONS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN NAMES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN1. Suing of partners in name of firm. - (1) Any two or more persons claiming or being liable as partners and carrying on business in, [India] may sue or be sued in the name of the firm (if any) of which such persons were partners at the time of the accruing of the cause of action, and any party to a suit may in such case apply to the Court for a statement of the names and addresses of the persons who were, at the time of the accuring of the cause of action, partners in such firm, to be furnished and verified in such manner as the Court may direct.(2) Where persons sue or are sued partners in the name of their firm under Sub-rule (1), it shall, in the case of any pleading or other document required by or under this Code to be signed, verified or certified by the plaintiff or the defendant, suffice if such pleading or other document is signed, verified or certified by any one of such persons....

Cit Vs. Standard Brands Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]285ITR295(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 26-7-2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 24 (Delhi)/2001. The impugned order has been passed in respect of the block period 1-4-1986 to 31-3-1997.2. It appears that the assessed had received an amount of R. 3 lakhs in cash from M/s. D.S. Imports. According to the assessing officer, the amount represented undisclosed income in the hands of the assessed while according to the assessed it was a deposit made by M/s. D.S. Imports.3. Notwithstanding the fact that the revenue was of the view that the amount was undisclosed income, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessed for the violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, which provides that loans or deposits in excess of Rs. 20,000 should not be received in cash.4. The assessed approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed an order on 6-10-2000 in which it was accorded that the assessed had received a deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs in cas...

Gopaldas Estates and Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indusind Bank Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT651; 2006(90)DRJ511

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This is a Suit for the grant of a mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to release and deliver to the Plaintiff the original Title Deeds in respect of land measuring 8.17 acres at Ardee City, Gurgaon. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff had availed of various financial facilities and loans from the Defendant in connection with which this land was pledged to the Defendant as collateral. However, it also stands admitted that all dues against those financial transactions stand squared and fully paid up. 2. Learned Counsel for the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff is holding a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) by way of Security with regard to the Lease Agreement entered into between the parties. The Defendant is the Lessee of the Plaintiff. As per registered Lease Deed the aforementioned sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Only) had been furnished as a Security by the Defendant. The contention of learned Counsel for the Defe...

Munshi Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Aggrieved by the action of opposite party is levying misuse charges and raising excessive bills, the complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Facts giving rise to this complaint, in brief, are that complainant is the registered consumer of electricity through electricity connection installed by the O.P. vide K. No. 1346943 of Zone No. 012, Type AP, at Khasra Nos. 455 and 204, Sainik Farm, Khanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. He paid all the bills raised by the O.P. for the energy consumed by him. In the month of May, 1992 the O.P. raised bill dated 27.5.1992 for Rs. 1,533 for a period of four months. Since the very installation of electric connection in the year 1990 till June, 1992 the average consumption ranged between Rs. 315 and Rs. 350 per month. In the month of August, 1992 he received a bill for the period of June and July, 1992 i.e., two months only for Rs. 32,255 i.e., more than 40 times the actua...

Cce Vs. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC287

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 27/09/05 which allowed the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the respondent sought services on a consulting engineer situated in Australia in respect of their plant at Raipur. The respondent paid the amount of service tax payable on such consultancy services received by them in April, 2004. Subsequently when they received communication from the consulting engineer that they have office in India, the respondent filed the refund claim with the authorities relying upon Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, hence revenue's appeal.3. The learned DR submits that the refund claim is not liable to be sanctioned because the department has in their possession letter written by the Chennai office of the foreign consultant indicating th...

Filament India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for stay is directed against the waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty involved in the case.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find that the service tax liability has arisen on the appellant for the services received by them from goods transport operators. The appellants have already discharged the service tax liability on 29-08-02 but have not discharged the interest liability, hence, show cause notice was issued which on adjudication confirmed the amounting interest and imposed penalty. Since the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of service tax payable by him, the recovery of the penalty is stayed, till the disposal of the appeal....

Ferro Metals Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC188

1. These appeals are directed against order in appeals dated 26^th February, 2004. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is common is in respect of the same appellant, both the appeals are taken up and disposed of by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant is registered dealer and had issued modvat credit invoices based upon the invoices and the material received from M/s Tara Re-Rolling Mills, Tedesara. Investigation on Tara Re-Rolling Mils divulged that the said re-rolling mill was not able to produce the goods hence waste and scrap could not have arisen in the factory, the whole exercise was done in collusion to pass on ineligible modvat credit. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 14/07/2000 for imposition of penalty under Rule 173-Q(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 read with Rule 226 and 209A. The appellants contested the show cause notice on time bar and also on merit. Adjudicating authority imposed penalty on the ...

Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Ind. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC672

1. Both Assesse and Revenue are in appeal against the same order.Therefore, both the appeals were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. M/s. Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Ind. Ltd. is a Central Excise assesse engaged in the manufacture of Sugar. In the year 1999-2000, it received an amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as consideration for technical service rendered to M/s. Krishna Taxport Industries Ltd. When this receipt came to its notice, Revenue issued a show cause notice alleging that the service rendered attracted Service Tax as 'Engineering Consultancy Services'. Accordingly, a Tax demand of about Rs. 4 lakhs was raised.3. The assessee resisted the demand and contended that service tax on Engineering Consultancy was attracted when service was rendered by a "Professionally qualified Engineer or Engineering Firm". The contention was that the assessee is not an Engineering Firm and, therefore, did not come within the definition of Consulting Engineer under the statute. ...

Nawanshahr Co-op. Sugar Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT18

1. The applicants are manufacturing sugar. There is restriction regarding the disposal of sugar manufactured by them and they are required to keep certain Buffer Stock. This is a statutory obligation.For maintaining the Buffer stock, they are provided a subsidy by a Government. The quantum of subsidy is computed by taking into account storage cost as well.2. Service Tax demand has been raised in these cases upon a binding that Buffer stock maintenance involves 'storage and warehousing service', which attracts Service tax.3. We have perused the record and heard both sides. Prima facie, it would appear that rendering of service is not involved at all. The applicants are only storing their own goods in their factory warehouse.Rendering of service would involve a provider as well as a recipient.Since the Government has not taken over the sugar, there is no storage of sugar for the Government. That the subsidy includes a cost element towards storage is no ground to hold that there is provi...