Delhi Court July 2006 Judgments

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Mohan Singh and Smt. Inderjit Kaur

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ593

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment of acquittal dated 31-5-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi acquitting both the respondents herein, who happen to be husband and wife, of the charges Under Section 302/34 IPC and respondent No. 1 Under Section 27 of the Arms Act also.2. The case of the prosecution put up before the trial court is as follows:On 4-12-85 an information about some quarrel in gali No. 11, Double Storey quarters at Motia Khan was received at Pahar Ganj police station at 10.55 a.m. and the same was recorded as DD No. 14-A. Copy of that DD entry was handed over for investigation to PW-16 ASI Charan Singh, who then went to DDA quarters in B block in Motia Khan along with one constable and came to know that one Paramjit Singh r/o B-68 had been stabbed with barchha by one Mohan Singh and the injured had been removed to Willingdon Hospital by Daler Singh and Kuldip Singh in the scooter of Satpal. ASI Charan Singh the...

S.C. Dikshit Vs. Chairman, Dda

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT253

S. Muralidhar, J.1. By this common judgment both the above writ petitions, namely, WP 1830/91 and WP 1831/91 are being disposed of. The petitioner, who joined the U.P. Civil Services (Executive) in the year 1957, joined the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the year 1970 on deputation as Officer on Special Duty. Till 1978 he served the DDA in various capacities. Between 1978-80 he worked as General Manager of the Delhi Small Industries Development Corporation as well as Secretary of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). On April 17, 1980 the DDA wrote to the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh that it requires the services of officers who have experience of dealing with the problems of urban development. This letter written by the DDA to the Chief Secretary to the Government of U.P., requested that the services of the petitioner be placed with the DDA, in public interest at the earliest. The petitioner joined the DDA on deputation as a Director (Commercial Lan...

Sureka Coated Tubes and Sheets Limited Vs. Citi Bank and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant is a Public Limited Company who purchased a car after taking a loan from O.P. No. 1. The present complaint has been filed as the said car was forcibly taken by O.P. No. 2 and was not returned to the complainant. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on or about 5th of (sic.) the complainant applied a loan for the purchase of a Premier Padmini Car. The O.Ps. advanced a loan of Rs. 97,243 to be paid by the complainant in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 2,525 each and the first instalment for the same was to fall due on 1st of November, 1990. The complainant regularly paid 46 instalments failing due till August, 1994 by 24th August, 1994. The O.P. No. 2 with the help of some unauthorised local police officer in police uniform physically snatched the car keys from the said Driver and seized the said vehicle No. DL-3CB-0175. O.P. No. 2 fled along with the said vehicle to an unknown destination. That the said vehicle was allegedly seized for...

Panther Detective Services Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STT215

2. The appeals are directed against service tax demands and imposition of penalties.3. The facts of the cases are that the appellants are providers of security service. That service became liable to service tax with effect from 16th October, 1998. The appellants promptly took registration, made periodic payments of tax and filed returns. For example, the first return was filed by appellant M/s. Panther Security Service in April, 1999. On 11-8-99, revenue issued show cause notice alleging that the service tax was required to be paid on the gross amount received and not on the service charge component alone. Differential duty demand was, accordingly, made. Despite the notice, the appellant continued to value service at the value of service charge. Consequentially under-payment also continued. The impugned orders demand the tax so short-paid from October, 1998 to September, 1999 and impose penalties.4. The appellants challenged the short-levy demand as well as penalty (@ Rs. 200/- per da...

Simplex Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC1

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal-dated 7.6.2004, which upheld the order in original rejecting the refund claim of the appellant.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported raw material for the manufacture of injections. The imported raw material suffered CVD. Appellant exported the injections manufactured by using the said raw material and filed a refund claim with the authorities under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The authorities rejected the said refund claim on two grounds i.e. on limitation and on non-applicability of the provisions for refund claim to CVD. On an appeal the Commissioner (appeals) also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the CVD paid is nothing but duty of excise. It is his submission that the denial of the refund is only on the technical ground and that there is no dispute as regards the cons...

R.N.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT209(Del)

Anil Kumar, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari quashing direction contained in the letter dated 26th May, 2006 directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 30.00 lakh as pre condition for hearing of his appeal.4. The petitioner contended that he was granted license to import and he had to meet the export obligation. The value based advance license for a CIF value of Rs. 45,31,250/- was for import of ball pen tips, writing ink and polyethylene moulding power etc. with a condition to export 15 lakh pieces of plastic body ball pens and parts thereof including refills for FOB value of US$2,32,000/- to Singapore.5. On non-fulfilling the export obligation, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 crore on the petitioner.6. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate committee remanded the matter to the Additional Director General of Foreign T...

Cit Vs. Freementle India Television

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]294ITR88(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench C in ITA No. 2607/Delhi/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98.2. A penalty of Rs. 4,58,393 was levied against the assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This has been set aside by the impugned order.3. The assessed produces TV Serialls and returned a total income of Rs. 15,60,920, which was assessed to Rs. 24,94,950 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessed claimed a deduction of Rs. 10,66,029 as format fee. The assessing officer did not allow this deduction and, thereforee, this amount was added to the total income. The assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars.4. According to the assessed, it had sent a letter on 2-6-1999 giving, its recomputation in which it had withdrawn its claim regarding format fee. It was also contended by the assessed, based on the Audi...

Raj Rani Vs. Lekh Raj

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(90)DRJ728

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Admit.2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The respondent is stated to have been inducted as a tenant in the year 1979 in respect of two rooms, verandah, kitchen, latrine and bathroom in respect of property at Bihari Colony. Shahdara, Delhi for the purpose of residence at a monthly rent of Rs. 325/-, which is stated to have been enhanced to Rs. 700/- per month. In the month of December 1991, the respondent is stated to have surrendered a part of the tenanted premises and only retained one room, which was converted into a shop as per mutual agreement between the parties and the rent was fixed @ Rs. 400/- per month, excluding electricity and water charges. The rent is stated to have been enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. Ja...

Barbour Vardhman Thread Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC392

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 13.9.2004 upholding the order-in-original to the extent of its apportioning technical-now-how fee of Rs. 30 lacs (Rupees Thirty Lacs) to the CIF invoice value of the goods imported, namely, machinery for manufacture of threads.2. The appellant had entered into a joint venture with the foreign-collaborator. There was a joint venture agreement under which manufacture, marketing, distribution and sales licence was to be undertaken. The licensed products were defined under that Agreement as follows: LICENSED PRODUCTS shall mean such industrial sewing threads, twines and braids and related products as are manufactured by BVTL in accordance with the know-how and technology licensed by BARBOUR to BVTL from time to time under the Technical Collaboration to be executed by and between BARBOUR AND BVTL. A list of LICENSED PRODUCTS is attached hereto as Attachment and made part of this AGREEMEN...

M.A. Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This stay application is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 27.6.2005 which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.2. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-compliance of the direction of pre-deposit as ordered by him. Shri Kamaljit Singh, learned proxy counsel, appearing on behalf of Shri Naresh Kumar Garg, submits that the direction of pre-deposit, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), was complied by the appellants on 5th May, 2005 as is evident from RG-23A, Part-II book entry filed at page 21 but he was not able to say for sure, whether this was produced before the lower authorities. Since the appellant has complied with the direction of pre-deposit, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), stay application is allowed and the appeal itself is taken for disposal.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. I find from the record that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for no...