Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

Pradeep Bindal Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. These are cross-appeals preferred against impugned order dated 5.3.2003 passed by the District Forum. Appellant DDA is aggrieved of the interest awarded @ 18% on the retention money whereas the appellant Pradeep Bindal is aggrieved of the rate of interest awarded @ 7% on the amount deposited by him for delayed delivery of possession of the flat. 2. There is no dispute that the possession of the flat was given after six years of the stipulated period of two years. The appellant DDA awarded 7% interest after 2 years for the first six months and, thereafter, @ 10% interest beyond the period of 36 months as per terms and conditions of the allotment. 3. As against this the District Forum has awarded interest @ 18% on the belated construction interest. Appellant has also deducted Rs. 15,549 towards TDS. Admittedly this amount has not been deposited by the appellant with the Income Tax Department. 4. Parties are always governed by the terms and conditions of the con...

Vindhyachal Employees Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT102

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the demand of service tax was confirmed on the appellant.2. The contention of the appellant is that it is a Welfare Association of Employees of National Thermal Power Corpn. at Sidhi and they were running a club, library etc. and also providing cable connection to their members only. The contention is that all the infrastructure assets including dish antenna and cabling etc. is owned by NTPC-Vindhyachal and monthly aid is also provided by NTPC for meeting the recurring expenditure. The contention is that the members of society are only contributed Rs. 40/- per month towards the subscription. The contention is that as the appellants cannot be held that they are cable operators as the infrastructure and assets provided by the NTPC-Vindhyachal and the Welfare Association is only maintaining that infrastructure.3. The contention of the revenue is that as per the ...

Sabharwal Security Consultants Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)14STT102

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of amount of penalty of Rs. 1,71,710/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused records. I find from the records that the appellant had got himself registered as a security service provider in 1999. Till October, 2001, the appellants discharged their tax liability as provided under the law. From October, 2001 to March, 2003 the appellants defaulted in paying the service tax by 552, 368 and 187 days. To my mind, the appellants were aware of the provisions of the Finance Act but still chose not to deposit the service tax amount within due date. The reasons given are that the proprietor was not well and was suffering from Hypertension and Diabetes. To my mind, this cannot be a reason for non-deposit of the service tax. The appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of penalty ...

Central Electronics Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 28/05/2004 which upheld the order in original rejecting the claim for interest by the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants had availed modvat credit to the amount of Rs. 29,34,360/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty only).On scrutiny of the records by the range officers and on the persuasion of range officers, appellant debited an amount of Rs. 29,34,360/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty only) vide PLA entry dated 09/12/1997 'under protest'. Show cause notice dated 09/03/1998 was issued to the appellant for the appropriation of the said amount paid by them on the ground that they had initially availed ineligible modvat credit and also were directed to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand and als...

Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)6STT342

1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 13-10-2005 which upheld the order in original dismissing the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are appellant were liable to deposit the amount of service tax on the services received by them from goods transport operators during the period 1997-98. The said service tax was deposited by the appellants on the request of the Superintendent of Central Excise's letter dated 15-1-2004. The appellants deposited the entire amount 'under protest'. Subsequently, appellants preferred a refund claim with the authorities on the ground that the L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. case 2006 (3) S.T.R. 230 (Tribunal) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.). The said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority and on an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) also upheld the said order in original.3. The authorized representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submit...

Fountainhead Design Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT249

1. This matter has been listed for admission as the amount of penalty involved in this case is Rs. 27,100/- (Twenty Seven Thousand and One Hundred only) which the appellant/applicant seeks waiver. Since, the issue involved in this case regarding service tax matter, provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 has not laid down any threshold limit for hearing and disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is admitted.2. The appellant in this case has already deposited the entire amount of service tax due from him, albeit belatedly. He is seeking the waiver of penalty. I find from the records that the applicant/appellant has already deposited pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and interest thereof. I consider this as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal. The pre-deposit of the penalty involved in this case is waived and recovery thereof stayed, till the disposal of the appeal....

Anita Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT381

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner prays for grant of special family pension to her in addition to ordinary family pension from the date of death of her husband, that is, with effect from 20.02.1999 after treating the death of her husband as attributable to or aggravated by military service.2. The background facts in a nutshell are that Late Swr. Dharam Pal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was enrolled in the army on 20th July, 1989 after medical examination by the Competent Recruiting Medical Authority and was found free from any kind of disease at the time of enrolment. While serving with 43 Armed Regiment, the deceased was admitted in the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, due to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and died on 20th February, 1999 at the said hospital. The petitioner being the legally wedded wife of the deceased and entitled to all pensionary and death benefits of her late husband applied for the grant of special family pension...

Ms Rukmani Devi Jaipuria Charitable Trust and ors. Vs. Dawar and Co. a ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT370

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 is stated to be the sole proprietorship of Mr. Nanak Chand Dawar. The firm is stated to have been closed almost 10 years ago and the sole proprietor has passed away. Respondent no.2 is the wife of Mr.Nanak Chand Dawar who has also passed away. Respondent No. 3 is the son of Mr.Nanak Chand Dawar and is stated to be the only legal representative and would thus represent the estate of the deceased father and the mother including the sole proprietorship concern. The said respondent has not appeared despite service and is proceeded ex parte. 2. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the said Code) is for causing an entry to be made to record that only respondent no.3 is entitled to defend the petition. The application is accordingly allowed.CM(M) No. 355/2003CM(M) No. 358/20031. A common question of law has arisen in both the petitions wherein a common orde...

Dr. Mrs. K. Kathuria Vs. National Consumer Disputes Red

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi135; 131(2006)DLT369; 2007(94)DRJ295

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 19th December, 2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by which the petitioner W.P.(C) 329/2006 was required to deposit 50% of the awarded amount as a pre-condition for stay of the order of the State Commission. The amount awarded in the present case was Rs. 2,50,000/- plus Rs. 5000/- as expenses. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows:19. Appeals.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed:Provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:[Provided further that...

Lt. Col. (Retd.) S.J. Chaudhri Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT376

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. By this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks transfer of case bearing RC No. 3/83 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, popularly known as 'Sikand Murder Case' from the court of Ms.Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi to the court of Sh.S.P. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.2. Shorn of details the facts are as follows. The petitioner Lt.Col.S.J. Chaudhri is the main accused in the 'Sikand Murder Case', who is alleged to have murdered one Mr.Krishan Sikand on 2.10.82 in his flat at 98, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi by way of a parcel bomb resulting in the registration of a case against him under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act bearing case No. RC-3/83. The said case was pending in the court of Ms.Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge posted at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and remained pending in her co...