Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishwanatha Tantri (Ex-branch Manager, Mhdfc, Bangalore Branch) Vs. th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1093; 2007(99)DRJ451
V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of complaint case, filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and consequential FIR No. 705/06 under various Sections of Indian Penal Code with P.S. Sarita Vihar.2. The brief facts of the case, as per the allegations made in the complaint/FIR are that the petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused persons had formed an illegal syndicate with some borrowers/brokers and got the loan sanctioned from respondent No. 3 on the basis of fabricated documents and on furnishing false material information and had illegally misappropriated the money of respondent No. 3 and have made wrongful gains for themselves and have caused wrongful losses to respondent No. 3.3. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner and other accused were required to verify and scrutinise the genuineness of borrowers and after complying with the formalities were required to recommend their ...
Puran Mal and Sons (a Partnership Business) and Shri Gopal Das Son of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)130; 2007(99)DRJ207; [2009]313ITR347(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm while Petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners.2. It appears that on 15th/16th October, 1971 the Income Tax Authorities [particularly the Director of Inspection (Investigation)] conducted a search and seizure operation in the residential as well as business premises of the partnership firm and one of its partners, namely, Shri Puran Mal. The search and seizure operation was conducted in Delhi, Hathras and Bombay. As a result of the operation, 114 silver bars lying deposited with the Laxmi Commercial Bank in Delhi and Punjab National Bank in Delhi were seized by the Respondents along with books of accounts and other documents.3. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the silver bars belonged to Puran Mal (individual) and not to the partnership firm. We need not go into this controversy since Puran Mal (Individual) is not before us.4. Be that as it may, assessment proceedings were held and by an assessment o...
Madhu Sankhla Vs. State Through Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ104
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This application has been made by the appellant for suspension of sentence. The appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was working in Delhi Police as Sub Inspector and posted in CAW Cell Amar Colony. She was investigating FIR No. 997/98 PS Sriniwaspuri lodged by PW 2 Mr. Ratan Kumar Modi. The complainant found that investigation of the case was not being done and charge-sheet was not being filed in the case and when he contacted the Investigating Officer i.e. the appellant, a demand of Rs. 50,000/- as bribe was made from him. A report was made by him to CBI in respect of this demand of bribe and a trap was laid. In his complaint he reported demand having been made by ACP Smt. Praveen Dutt, Inspector Shashi Punj and the appellant and out of total demand of Rs. 50,000/- the appellant had to pay first installment of payment to the police offic...
Harmeet Singh Paintal Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ190
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. All petitions can be disposed by a common order for the reason learned Counsel for the parties agree that save and except the cheque number, date of cheque and the amount, each and every averment in the complaints which are sought to be quashed in the instant petitions are identical.2. Since matter was argued with reference to Crl.M.C.No. 2953/05, complaint forming subject matter of the said petition may be noted.3. But before that it may be recorded that all the complaints are under Section 138 read with Section 141 of N.I. Act. The complainant is National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Accused No. 1 is M/s Jay Rapid Rollers Ltd. It is a company registered under the Companies Act. Accused No. 2, Sukhbir Singh is stated to be the Managing Director of accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 is the petitioner, stated to be the Director of accused No. 1.4. The complaint is short and cryptic. It may be reproduced verbatim.1. That the complainant firm is a Govt, of India Ent...
Prabhakar Venkappa Bhat and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1109; 2007(99)DRJ278
ORDERV.B. Gupta, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C., seeking quashing of complaint case, filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and consequential FIR No. 705/06 under various sections of Indian Penal Code with P.S. Sarita Vihar.2. The brief facts of the case, as per the allegations made in the complaint/FIR, are that Vishwanatha Tantri (petitioner No. 3), Branch Manager of the complainant company in October/November, 2000, recommended to the complainant company, house loan of Rs. 3 lacs of petitioner No. 1 and 2 as applicant and co-applicant for the purpose of construction of a house, situated at site No. 153. kh. No. 80/2A, H.L. No. 153, Kolhapur Village, Uttarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. It was induced by petitioner No. 1 that the property in question stands in his name. On the assurances given by petitioners 1 & 2 that they have good title over the property and it was a good mortgage, the head office asked the Bra...
Herbalife International India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)638
ORDER1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dt. 28th Feb., 2006 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench TV in ITA No. 1771/Del/2005 relevant for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration:Whether the order of the Tribunal is vitiated for non-consideration of the material on record and sustaining an ad hoc addition of Rs. 3 crores despite the specific finding that the assessed has not carried out any sales outside the books of accounts?Filing of paper books is dispensed with.The assessed manufactures herbal products for use in weight management, to improve nutrition and enhance personal care. According to the assessed, in the nature of the business that it carries out, there is some degree of wastage due to the perishable nature of the goods manufactured.During the accounting year in question, the assessed had to physically destroy some stocks of perishable goods that...
Karam Bir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ68
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. There are seventy (70) Petitioners before us all of whom prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and further appropriate directions to the Respondents to allow pensionary benefits to them with all consequential benefits including the payment of arrears for the period when the benefits were withheld and further to allow the Petitioners to rejoin/be re-inducted to their respective services. It is the latter prayer which has been substantially pressed before us. The controversy, however, is no longer res integia in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar : (2001) 4 SCC 309 and Raj Kumar v. Union of India : (2006) 1 SCC 737.2. In Rakesh Kumar the Petitioner had joined the Border Service Force as a constable on 15.1.1981 and continued to serve till he submitted his resignation on 11.2.1994, after rendering 12 years and 8 months of service. His resignation was accepted on 1.3.1994 under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules,...
Bharat Apex Industries Ltd. Vs. Cst
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STJ311CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax of Rs. 2,41,491/- and penalties.2. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants received service of Consulting Engineer and had not paid any service tax. The contention of applicant is that royalty is paid in respect of transfer of Technical know how service and not in respect of Consulting Engineer.3. The contention of revenue is that as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the agreement is for providing technical and other assistance in relation to manufacture and design of heat exchanger units. Therefore, it is covered under the scope of Consulting Engineer.4. We find that as per the agreement, the applicant received technical and other assistance. Hence applicant received service of consulting Engineer. In view of the terms and conditions of agreement, prima facie, it is not a fit case for waiver of service tax. The applicants are directed to deposit Rs. 1,20,000/- within ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)9STR562
1. The revenue filed this application for stay of operation of the impugned order whereby credit in respect of input services was allowed.The service tax was paid in respect of commission to their agent.2. We find that as per the scope of input service, the input service means any service by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final product and clearance of final products from the place of removal and includes services used in relation to advertisement, sale promotion, etc. In view of the above definition, we find no merit in the application and the same is rejected....
Cc (Prev.) Vs. Rose Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-23-2007
Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC185
1. The Revenue has appealed against the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it has reduced the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lacs in lieu of confiscation as imposed by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 25,000/- and the penalty of Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 10,000/-.2. The facts are not in dispute. Both the authorities below have concurrently found that, the imported goods (20936 kgs. of old and used worm clothings) were declared to be of the value of Rs. 3,11,404.80, but their assessable value was Rs. 5,96,676/-. The said assessable value was acceptable to the importer. It has also not been contested that the goods were imported without the required licence/permission.The import of the goods was not allowed without the required licence/permission. The goods were imported in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The importer had accepted the assessable value proposed by the appraising Officer. The authorities have, therefore, rightly held that, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »