Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Ashwani Kumar Jaswal Vs. Special Director of Enforcement Directorate o ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ217

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue rule. Mr. Suresh Kait waives notice of rule. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter was heard for disposal.2. The limited grievance of the Petitioner in these proceedings is with regard to regarding orders of the Appellate Tribunal dated 21.2.2007 and 4.5.2006 whereby the requirement of pre-deposit embodied in Section 52(2) of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereafter referred to as 'FERA') was partially waived. As a result of the said orders, instead of the requirement of having to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs the Petitioner is now called upon to pre-deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as a condition for the hearing of his appeal.3. The Petitioner was, at the relevant time, Managing Director of M/s Jaswal Granites Ltd. (hereafter 'the Company'). The company engaged itself in export of Granite to foreign buyers. Since it did not receive foreign exchange remittances, proceedings under FERA were initiated. On 2.8.2000 a show cause notice was issue...

Narender Kumar Sharma Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC600

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application under Section 438, Cr. P.C. has been made for anticipatory bail by the applicant, who is an accused of offence under Sections 406/408/409/420/ 467/468/471/379/380/120B read with Section 34, IPC. The accused was an employee of the complainant. Complainant was an illiterate person and the accused was looking after the accounts of the complainant. It is alleged that accused with the intention to play fraud upon the complainant diverted several cheques issued by the complainant, at the trust and faith of the accused for depositing tax, etc., in the name of bank (yourself), to his own accounts by committing and changing the amount of cheques and making endorsements on the back of the cheques. The complainant gave the details of the different cheques issued; one cheque was for Rs. 6,785/-which accused tampered and made of Rs. 60,785/- similarly, another cheque of Rs. 8,738/- was tampered and made of Rs. 80,738/- and likewise. The other cheques...

Keshavji Anandji Shah and anr. Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ759

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice. In view of the order proposed counsel for the parties agree that the matter be heard today.2. This writ petition challenges an order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board made on 18.5.2007. By the impugned order the Board dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the orders dated 29.12.1999 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi in the course of a rectification application moved by the petitioner. The amendment was sought to counter claims moved by the second respondent.3. In view of the order proposed I do not deem it necessary to set out the facts in detail. The second respondent apparently had obtained a 'cease and desist' order against the petitioner on 19.11.1994. The latter filed an application for rectification on 7.1.1995. The rectification application continues to be pending it has not been decided as yet. In the meanwhile TM56 was filed by the Regi...

Hira Lal and Son (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Royal Jordanian Airlines

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainant is a private limited company and has sought compensation of Rs. 17,54,854 for having delivered a consignment to the buyer without retiring the document from the bank. 2. Case of the complainant who is in the business of exports, in brief, is that it received order for the supply of different styles of garments vide contract bifurcated by No. 175091 0087 and 300014/92 from M/s. Penta Trade, Bratislava (presently Slovokian Republic), copies of contract are enclosed as Annexure-C collectively. Part of ordered garments were dispatched through the opposite parties. They were delivered to O.P. - 1 as per the particulars and of values as per the invoices as under:Airway Bill No.No. of Pkgs.Inv, No. and datevalue (Rs.)5122124 618625820044,64,944.0013.5.9224.4.925122124 621218820062,88,495.0027.5.9216.5.925122124 62129820071,79,500.00The consignments under the above airway bills were consigned to Ceskoslowenska Obchodni Banka Belopotcker...

Batala Citi Cable Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ64CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. The Assistant Commissioner vide his impugned order confirmed Service Tax on the appellants as "Advertising Agency" along with confirmation of interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/- in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act. The said order was reviewed by Commissioner, who enhanced the penalty equivalent to duty amount and also imposed penalty under various other sections of the Act. The said order is impugned before me.2. It is seen that the period involved is 6.8.98 to 30.6.02. The appellant deposited the Service Tax in the month of June/July, 2004.The adjudicating authority has taken note of the fact that since there was confusion in the field, the appellant's bona fides cannot be doubted. I, in any case, found that in terms of Extraordinary Taxpayer Friendly Scheme issued by the board, if disputed Service Tax is deposited before 30.11.04, the same will not attract any penal action.The said scheme has been taken note of by...

The Financiers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. As per the facts on record, the appellants is engaged in arranging finance/loans for its customers from various banks and financial institutions, for which purposes he gets the commission from the banks and institutions. His factory premises was visited by the officers on 10-3-2005 and it was observed that the appellant was covered under the category of 'business auxiliary service' and was required to pay Service tax. The appellant accepted their lapse and paid the tax for the period from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-05 to the tune of Rs. 1,15,173/-. The said tax along with interest of Rs. 42,245/- was deposited by them on 25-3-2005.2. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against them for appropriation of the above deposited tax and interest and for imposition of penalty, by way of issuance of a show cause notice. The said notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the duty and interest but did not impose any penalty as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Act. T...

Opus Media and Entertainment Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue in the present appeal is as regards imposition of penalties by the Commissioner, in review proceedings, under the provisions of Sections 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed Service Tax of Rs. 1,50,312/- against the appellant, who are engaged in the Event Management Service and Business Auxiliary Service for the period 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005.The appellants were registered as Service Tax provider and the dispute is as regards the value of such services. On being pointed out, the appellant deposited the tax along with interest amount of Rs. 36,331/-.By considering the fact that there could be a bona fide dispute about the actual value of the services, Assistant Commissioner did not impose any penalty in terms of provisions of Section 80 of the Act. However, the said order was reviewed by Commissioner, who imposed penalties under Sections 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act.2. 1, after hearing both the sides, find that there was con...

Rajesh Kumar Jagga and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC58

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by the Tribunal below on I.A. No. 254/2006 in O.A. No. 121/2004. The O.A.in question has been filed by the respondent No. 1-Bank against the appellants/defendants and others for the recovery of certain amount.The other defendants in the O.A. are respondents 2 to 12 herein.2. The respondent-Bank also proceeded under the SRFAESI Act against the defendants and took physical possession of certain property after dispossessing the appellants/defendants. The respondent-Bank then filed an application to withdraw the O.A. as it decided to proceed under the SRFAESI Act. The application of the Bank was decided by the Tribunal below by order dated 5.7.2005 and the O.A. was allowed to be withdrawn.The appellants challenged the order dated 5.7.2005 before this Appellate Tribunal by means of a miscellaneous appeal. When that appeal came up for hearing on 18.4.2006, it was represented by the respondent-Bank that they were willing to ...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Rajni Malik and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC60

1. Both these Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same O.A. 1/2004 of DRT-III, Delhi and have been filed by the applicant of the said O.A., i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce against the respondents (defendants in O.A.). So, they can be conveniently decided together.2. Miscellaneous Appeal 68/2005 is directed against the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Tribunal below dismissing LA. 342/2004 moved by the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The said I.A. 342/2004 had been made by the Bank under Section 19(11) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to exclude the counter-claim of the defendants from the O.A. and to direct the counter-claim to be disposed of by an independent order.3. The Bank has filed the O.A. in question for the recovery of Rs. 40 lakh and odd against the respondents herein (defendants in O.A.). They put in appearance before the DRT and filed written statement with a counter-claim for Rs. 9,90,107.68...

Usha International Ltd. Vs. Rajkot Agro Industries and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2007(3)384

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 1271/2007 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC) INCS (OS) No. 214/20071. The written statement has been filed with a delay of 167 days. No reply has been filed to the interim application. The interim Orders dated 06.02.2007 are made absolute and the application stands disposed of.IA No. 10751/2007 (Under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3)IA No. 11588/2007 (Under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC by Defendant No. 4)2. The applications have been filed by the defendants seeking condensation of delay in filing the written statement. Defendant nos.1 to 3 were served on 13.02.2007 while defendant No. 4 was served on 15.02.2007. The local commissioner, appointed by this Court, to seize the offending goods visited the premises of the defendants on 13.02.2007 and handed over a copy of the Order. The written statement has been filed only on 29.08.2007 and re-filed on 15.09.2007. In the meantime, counsel for the defendants had entered appearance on 09.05.2007 and was d...