Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]318ITR177(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated June 13, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in I.T.A. No. 1765/2001 relevant for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The assessee filed its return of income on November 30, 1994, declaring a loss. It appears that the return was not signed by the managing director or the director of the assessee, which is a company. The return was signed by the general manager (finance) and the company secretary of the assessee.3. The Assessing Officer, in view of Section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, came to the conclusion that since the return was not filed by the managing director or the director, it was non est.4. It may be noted that at no point of time was there any contest on behalf of the assessee that this return was not its return or was not an authorised return or that the general manager (finance) and the company secretary did not have any authority to file the return. On the contrary, there was a power of attorne...

Rotary Foundation (India) Vs. Purshottam Das Bansal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT37; 2006(91)DRJ41

Vikramajit Sen, J.IA No. 3097/20051. Appearance has been entered by the Defendant. No further Orders are called for in this application which stands disposed of accordingly.IA No. 3093/20052. The Defendant has applied for Leave to Defend. No further Orders are called for on this application which stands disposed of accordingly.IA No. 1438/2005 & 2631/20063. Counsel for the Defendant states that he has no connection with M/s. Munshi Ram Vilayati Ram at Patiala under license No. PB864. He states that, thereforee, he is not concerned whether Order dated 25.2.2005 should be made absolute or not. 4. The Orders dated 25-2-2005 are made absolute. Applications disposed of accordingly.IA No. 4384/20064. I shall now dispose of the Defendant's application under Order xxxvII Rules 3 & 5 of the CPC, seeking Leave to Defend the summary Suit. It has been stated by learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Defendant was served on 18.3.2005 and he filed his Appearance on 28.3.2005. Thereafter Summons ...

Chunni Lal Proprietor C.L. Constructions Company Vs. Rpg Home Finance ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT212

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This litigation has fallen for consideration de novo for the second time. By Orders dated 23.7.2003, a Sole Arbitrator had been appointed by C.K.Mahajan, J. In the Order, it had been stated that the Respondent had failed to file Replies and to controvert the statement of facts and allegations made in the application. However, Replies had been filed by Respondent No.1 on 24th December, 1999 to which a Rejoinder had been filed by the Applicant on 8th May, 2000. These were overlooked since they had been wrongly filed by the Dealing Clerk in Part-II. The Orders dated 23.7.2003 appointing an Arbitrator came to be set aside by the Supreme Court on this short ground.2. The existence of the following Arbitration Clause is not in dispute:28. All disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of or in connection with the Contact or the carrying out of the works (whether during the progress of the works or after their completion and whether before or after the dete...

Sea Transport Contractors Ltd. Vs. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperati ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ83

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these Orders I shall dispose of an application bearing No. 6425/2006 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the Plaintiff, namely, Sea Transport Contractors Ltd. (`STC' for short) seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant No. 1, namely, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. (`IFFCO' for brevity) from transmitting an alleged debt of Rs. 180,60,00,000 (Rupees one hundred eighty crores and sixty lacs only) being the equivalent of approximately U.S. dollars 40 million to Defendant No. 2, namely, Industries Chimiques du Senegal (`ICS' for short). ICS has filed I.A. No. 7132/2006 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 C.P.C. praying for the vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction granted by me on the first date of hearing viz. 29.5.2006; I had restrained IFFCO from making payment to ICS unless a sum of 40 million dollars was first set aside by IFFCO and deposited by it in Escrow Account. IFFCO has filed I.A. 7...

Air India Limited Vs. N.K. Sethi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 134(2006)DLT147; 2006(91)DRJ68

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These two appeals are taken up together as common questions are involved.2. LPA No 940 of 2002 is directed against an order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition(C) 4550 of 2000 filed by the respondent Shri N.K. Sethi and directing the appellant- Air India to consider the case of Shri Sethi for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, if otherwise eligible, by including the tenure of his past service rendered during the time he was in Mumbai.3. LPA No 57 of 2003 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 1.5.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the Writ Petition (C) 5549 of 2000 filed by the respondent Shri S.K. Sahni whereby the appellant Air India was directed to consider the case of Shri Sahni for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager, if otherwise eligible, by including the tenure of his service rendered as Store Keeper in Mumbai.3. The issue arising in this case stems from a Note No. 3 in t...

Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. and anr. Vs. Essar Industries and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(33)PTC469(Del)

Reva Khetrapal, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for leave to place on record the supplementary affidavit of Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli ((PW-1) and affidavit of Ms.Venita Gabriel, both dated 29th April, 2005.2. Leave is sought by the plaintiffs to file supplementary affidavit of Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli ((PW-1) on the ground that the Power of Attorneys in favor of Mr.M.S.I. Lakdawala, Ex.P-1-B and Ex.P-53, the originals of which were with the plaintiffs, have been lost/misplaced and despite all reasonable efforts made by PW-1 Mr.Balasubramaniam Murli, the same could not be traced out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the photocopies of the same, already on record, be accepted and allowed to be proved as secondary evidence.3. Leave is also sought by the plaintiffs to file the affidavit of Ms. Venita Gabriel in view of the amendment of Section 65 of the Indian ...

Sai Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC490

1. This appeal is filed against the order in appeal dated 16-7-2004 which upheld the order in original and sustained the confirmation of duty and penalty on the appellant.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants are availing Modvat credit on the inputs i.e. transformer oil in their factory. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of transformers and were also repairing transformers sent by UPSEB and other Government Department. From the scrutiny of the records, it was noticed by the revenue that the appellants were consuming modvatable inputs i.e.transformer oil in the transformers that were repaired and cleared without payment of duty. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for the reversal of the proportionate Modvat credit on the quantity of transformer oil which were consumed in the repairs and for imposing penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. On an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) set aside a part...

Cce Vs. Standard Surfactants Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC169

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order in appeal dated 27^th April, 2004 which set aside the order in original that rejected the refund claim of the respondent.2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondents availed modvat credit on FRP storage tanks in the month of July 1995.The RT-12 in the month of July 1995 was scrutinized by the range officers and they directed the appellants to reverse the modvat credit availed on such FRP storage tank on the ground that the issue is pending before the adjudicating authority for the earlier period. The respondent reversed the modvat credit in PLA vide entry dated 31/01/96 and immediately on 6^th February 96, the respondent submitted that the said reversal be treated as under protest. The respondent filed refund claim of the said amount on 23/04/96 which was returned back to them by the authorities on 08/05/96 indicating that the identical issue for earlier period is pending for adjudication. The pending litigation...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Him Cylinders Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC307

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 30.7.04 partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the order-in-original made on 31.1.95 by the Assistant Collector by which the refund claim of Rs. 1,31,181.62 was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that in view of the debit notes of the oil companies, deducting the amount for the bills on account of duty, there was no question of raising the issue of unjust enrichment in respect of amount of Rs. 1,06,353/-. The refund claim for Rs. 16,612.54 was, however, rejected as time barred.2. Earlier, the Tribunal, in appeal No. E/1765/95-A, preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chandigarh made on 31.8.1995, had remanded the matter by Final Order No. 329/99-A dated 2.2.1999 in the following terms: 3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the Commissioner has decided the issue on merits. He has not examined w...

Shri Arvind Kumar Section Officer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. These three applicants have filed the present OA for quashing the order of the respondents dated 7.8.2004 and September, 2004 whereby they have been denied the higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and they pray that they should be granted the benefit of revised upgradation of pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 as granted to similarly placed officers in the Railways and other Organized Accounts Cadres with effect from 1.1.1996 notionally and with actual financial benefits from 19.2.2003 at par with others and also the consequential benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.2. These applicants are working as Section Officers (Accounts and Statistics) in the Directorate of Sugar under Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution of the Government of India. As per the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000. The Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) revised and upgraded...