Delhi Court January 2007 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sahi Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR57(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.CM No. 693/2007 (Exemption)Allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed of accordingly.Caveat No. /2007Since the caveators have put in appearance through counsel, the caveat stands disposed of.W.P. (C) No. 376/2007 & CM No. 692/20071. Rule DB.2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. We are not inclined to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal dated 13.7.2006 in view of the fact that the Inquiry Report apart from not being furnished to the respondent also did not deal with paragraph (3) of the reply of the respondent given by his counsel to the show cause notice. The reply has presumably not been taken into account on the ground that the reply was not given by him and sent by the counsel. Thus it is clear that the respondent was not right in dealing with the plea raised in para 3 of the reply which reads as under:That the offence which is being leveled against my client with regar...

Atma Ram Trust Vs. Dr. Chiranji Lal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT437

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present landlord tenant dispute spans a period of over four decades and various rounds of litigation.2. One Sh. R.S Basaka Singh, the owner of a shop bearing No. 14, 'C' Block Connaught Place, New Delhi consisting of a ground floor (hall) and a balcony in the rear portion let out the same to M/s Lal and Co in 1941. The sole proprietor of M/s Lal and Co., Dr. Chiranji Lal (respondent No. 1/tenant) inducted a partner Sh. Dwarka Nath in the business. Disputes arose between the partners and a receiver was appointed for the assets of the partnership by a Civil Court.3. The property in question was purchased by Sh. Atma Ram Chadha (predecessor in interest of the Appellant/landlord) on 20.08.1962. On 22.03.1963, Sh Atma Ram Chadha filed an eviction petition against the respondents under Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on grounds of non-payment of rent; subletting and bona fide requirement ...

Cit Vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]307ITR197(Delhi)

ORDER1. These three appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order dated 11 -11 -2005 pass ed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A in IT A Nos. 631-633/ Delhi/2001 relevant for the assessment years 1991-92, 1997-98 and 1998-99.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier orders passed on 23-9-2005 in ITA Nos. 1412,3995 and F 3996/Delhi/1999 for assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 (Re: Moonlight Builders and Developers).3. On 12-9-2006, learned counsel for the assessed brought to our notice that the orders passed by the Tribunal on 23-9-2005 were not challenged by the revenue and if those orders were not challenged, there was no justification for the revenue to file the present appeals which merely relied upon the orders passed on 23-9-2005.4. It was further pointed out by learned counsel for the assessed that the orders passed on 23-9-2005 followed orders passed b...

Pushpa Devi and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC95; 2007ACJ1431

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Deceased Sub-Inspector Jeevan Ram Sharma died as a result of an accident which took place on 29.11.1999. He was aged 52 years when he died.2. Offending vehicle No. DIG 9491, a truck driven by the respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2 was insured with respondent No. 3.3. Since the claimants, being the wife, mother and 5 minor children of the deceased are seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded, I need to note only such relevant facts as are necessary to decide the issue of compensation.4. As noted above, the deceased was a Sub-Inspector with Delhi Police. His last salary certificate Exh. PW 1/A shows the salary of Rs. 12,021 per month.5. Considering the family of deceased, the Tribunal has held that it would be safe to assume that th of the income of the deceased would be spent on self. Family pension was also deducted. Learned Tribunal has treated the loss of dependency to the family at Rs. 51,000 per annum. Applying the multiplier 9, loss to th...

Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Ravinder Kumar Gulati and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi213; 2007(94)DRJ475

J.M. Malik, J.1. The delay in filing the present appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of.FAO 377-78/2006Both the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court have handed down a verdict that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. adumbrated in brief, the case of the appellants is this. Appellants purchased a property comprising ground floor measuring 87 square yards approximately, bearing No. 11/4-A(1) Tilak Nagar, for a consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/- from respondent No. 1 after appellant was assured that the property is free from all encumbrances or charges, etc. The agreement was also executed in this regard. In the meantime, it transpired on 19.4.2005 that respondent No. 1 had taken loan from Citi Bank, respondent No. 2 against the hypothecation of suit property. In their written statement the bank, respondent No. 2 made the following averments. The respondent No. 1 entered into a loan agreement with the respondent No. 2 bank in the month of March 200...

Dr. Jyoti Prakash Tayal Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)ACC56; 2008ACJ276

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By and under FAO 91/1987, New India Assurance Company challenges the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 9th February, 1907 insofar as adverse findings have been returned against it on the issue whether the policy in question was restricted to Rs. 50,000/- or not.2. Finding returned is that the policy was not limited to Rs. 50,000/-.3. Vide FAO No. 167/1987, the injured Dr. Jyoti Prakash Tayal prays for enhancement of the compensation.4. Admittedly, the original certificate of insurance nor the original policy of insurance was proved. It was not even filed. A photocopy of the stated policy was filed and was exhibited as Ex. RW 3/D.5. Ex. RW 3/D shows that a third party insurance cover has been taken by the insured, owner of the vehicle Sardar Kartar Singh.6. It records that the liability towards third party is restricted to Rs. 50,000/-.7. However, learned Tribunal has held against the Insurance Company for the reason the original p...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Realest Builders and Services Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]307ITR200(Delhi)

1. Learned Counsel for the parties pray that these appeals to be taken on Board today because connected matters have been listed and have been disposed of by this court.2. In view of the request of learned Counsel we take these appeals on Board.The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated September 23, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'G' in I.T.A. Nos. 3135, 629, 4760 and 1456/Del/1999 relevant for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1998-99.3. We find from the perusal of the impugned order that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier orders passed on June 14, 2003 (Re : DLF Commercial Project Corporation) and June 14, 2004 (Re : Sunrise Land and Housing Co. Ltd.).4. These two primary orders have been accepted by the Revenue and have not been challenged by filing an appeal.5. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Satish Panalal Shah : [2001]249ITR221(SC) and this court in CIT v. A.R.J. Security Printers : [2003]264I...

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.S. Industries an ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: (Oral) On the complaint of having sold a defective mobile hand-set of the value of Rs. 21,000, the District Forum has vide its order dated 20.9.2006 found the appellant guilty of deficiency in service as well as for having manufactured and sold a defective hand-set and directed it to refund the cost of the hand-set as well as to pay Rs. 4,000 as compensation for inconvenience and mental agony. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. There is no dispute that the set was purchased in November, 2002 and the complaint about non-functioning or defective functioning of the hand-set was filed before the District Forum in December, 2003. During the proceedings, the appellant moved an application for the examination of the hand-set by some authorized laboratory. Since no authorized person/laboratory was available and he found it in perfect functioning order except that the software was very old and required its upgradation. 3. In our view, this rep...

Reiz Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC472

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner dated 31.10.2001 by which central excise duty of Rs. 39,15,000/- was ordered to be recovered from it and penalty of like amount imposed along with payment of interest on the duty amount. It is stated that the decision of the Tribunal in appeal filed by M/s. REIZ Enterprises was not challenged before the Supreme Court and was accepted.2. When the appeal was initially decided before the remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal by its order dated 18.12.2002, upheld the Commissioner's order in regard to the denial of small scale unit exemption to the appellant company and the demand of duty against it as well as the penalty imposed on it. The demand of interest was also confirmed.3. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court by its order dated 24.8.2006, relying on the directions which were given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court earlier in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II v. Bhalla Enterprises reported in 2004 (173) ELT 226 (SC), rema...

Cce Vs. Arcee Ispat Udyog Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC554

1. Heard the learned D.R. on behalf of the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of issue of notice and there is no application for adjournment.2. In this case, on 2.2.98 the central excise officers visited the factory of the respondent when they detected shortage of finished goods. The respondent after 3 days of the detection of shortage paid entire amount of duty of Rs. 99,227/-. A show cause notice dated 3.7.98 was issued proposing demand of duty of Rs. 99,227/- and imposition of penalty under Rule 9(2) and 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for contravention of the provisions of Rules. By the adjudication order dated 7.5.99, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty and appropriated the said amount against the deposit made by the respondent. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 9(2) and 173Q of the Rules, 1944. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (...