Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

Cit Vs. Taiko Chander Nagar Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR475(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 15-12-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in ITA No. 3100/Delhi/2004 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of bleaching earth (also known as Fuller's earth) which is used for purification of coconut oil. The assessee also exports Fuller's earth to Singapore and Malaysia. It appears that the assessee used to receive advances from the foreign buyers in foreign exchange to be adjusted against the supplies to be made and that the assessee was maintaining some sort of a running account. It showed this amount in its balance sheet under the head 'Current liabilities'. The admitted position is that although it received the remittance by way of advances in foreign exchange in May and July 2000 it adjusted the advances partly against the supplies made for the period 1-4-2001 to 31-12-2001 and the balance against the sales made on 25-3-2002.3. As a result o...

Mukesh Rastogi Vs. North Delhi Power Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ108

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Special Electricity Court, Rohini dated 8th August, 2007 and order on sentence of the same day whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 135 and 138 of Electricity Act and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for period of one year and civil liability of the appellant was fixed under Section 154 (V) of Electricity Act to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-2. The appellant challenged the order of the Trial Court on the ground that the officials, who inspected the premises of the appellant on 21st December, 2004 were not the Officers duly authorized by the State Government under Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act. The Government of NCT had issued a notification dated 15th March, 2004 whereby the officers of the rank of Manager and above were designated as authorized Officers for inspection. Since the Inspection Report dated 21.12.2004 shows that none of the officers, who inspected the premises was o...

Diksha Dhingra Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ113

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.FIR No. 713/2007 dated 5.8.2007 under Sections 420/409/120/34 IPC PS Najafgarh.1. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.8.2007. She has thus remained injudicial custody for 71 days.2. Petitioner is aged 43 years. She is employed as a teacher in the nursery section of DAV Public School, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. She is an accused in the afore-noted FIR.3. FIR has been registered on the complaint lodged by G. Somasekhar on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.4. As per the FIR, the common proficiency test of chartered accountancy course was to be held all over India on 5.8.2007. 82,000 candidates were appearing in said, examination. About 15,000 candidates were to take the exam at Delhi at 20 centres. DAV Public School, West Patel Nagar was one out of the 20 centres earmarked for conducting exam at Delhi. Before the examination commenced, on 5.8.2007 at 8.30 A.M. 'India TV aired a sting operation showing that the paper had leaked and one Sudesh Kumar ...

Zohra Seikh @ Chaman Vs. Stata and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ117

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Zohra Sheikh wife of Sharafat Sheikh seeks bail in FIR No. 464/2005 under Section 21/29 of the NDPS Act read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Sections 468/471/201/120-B IPC and Sections 3/4. of MCOCA 1999 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.2. As per the charge-sheet filed, petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for offences under Section 4 of The Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999 (herein-after referred to as MCOCA) and offences under Section 468/471/201/120-B IPC.3. Petitioner is the 2nd wife of Sharafat Sheikh who is alleged to be the kingpin of an organized crime syndicate. The key members of the organized crime syndicate are stated to be: Sharafat Sheikh, Abdul Wajid, Mohd. Saliim, Sheikh Hannan, Nazma Sheikh (first wife of Sharafat Sheikh) and the petitioner.4. As per the prosecution, in the year 1978 Sharafat Sheikh came pennyless to Delhi from Kishan Ganj, Bihar. He worked as a dish-washer at a roadside eatery in Seelampur, Delhi and went on ...

Jai Bharat Steel Indus. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC241

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 16.08.2005 upholding the order-in-original by which the adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 31,488/- and Rs. 1,98,148/- being amounts refunded erroneously on 01.04.2003 and 22.05.2003 with interest @ 13% from the date of refund and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,30,596/-.2. It is not disputed that the appellant has availed the refund of the aforesaid two amounts twice. Earlier, the refund was availed by making a suo moto credit entry in the PLA on 02.07.1993 for paying duty on finished goods without getting any formal sanction order enabling the appellant to do so. Thereafter, the appellant again obtained refund of these two amounts by encashing two cheques; one dated 01.04.2003 for Rs. 31,448/- and another dated 22.05.2003 for Rs. 1,99,148/-, which were issued in response to their two refund applications dated 07.10.1995.3. The appellant in their written submissions filed on 17.01.2005 had admi...

Star Cable Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STJ567CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner enhancing the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 from Rs. 100/- only to Rs. 48,010/- being amount of service tax involved.2. It has been held that, the appellant was liable to pay appropriate penalty for the delay in payment of service tax for a period of 517 days. Therefore, @ Rs. 100/- per day, the amount would exceed the service tax of Rs. 48,010/-, which was payable. The Commissioner, therefore, revised the order-in-original by enhancing the penalty to Rs. 48,010/-.3. It appears from the record that, the Commissioner had issued show cause notice dated 20^th November, 2006 in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 84 of the said Act requiring the appellant to show cause against enhancement of penalty while offering personal hearing on 24.11.2006. It was indicated that if the appellant did not appear on 24.11.2006 at 11.00 AM, the case will be decided ex-parte. The...

Sh. Sohan Lal Gautam S/O Sh. J.P. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This Review Application has been filed against the order dated 23.05.2007 passed in OA-1372/2005.2. The applicants have filed the present Review Application primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the various grounds, which had been pleaded in the O.A.3. Learned Counsel Sh. B.S. Mainee has submitted that the applicants at the time of arguments had relied upon the following five judgments and unfortunately these judgments have escaped the notice of the Tribunal and there is neither reference nor any finding of the Tribunal in the judgment. Therefore, this is an error on the face of the judgment:Direct Recruit Class II, Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.T. Vijayan and Ors. v. Divl. Railway Manager and Ors. ATJ 2000(3) 89State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Aghore Nath Dey and Ors. (v) Mohinder Singh and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. OA-1649/1997 decided on 09.07.2003 4. In fact, all these judgments have been considered while deciding ...

H.S. Pannu Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ366

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These revision proceedings under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) involve decision of common questions. Hence with consent of counsel, they were heard together.2. The Petitioners purport to be aggrieved by orders of the Special Court, constituted under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned orders in the first set of revisions, the Special court had directed, as a condition for grant of bail, the Petitioner-accused to deposit amounts, in one set of revision petitions. In the other set of revision petitions, the Court recorded undertakings that the petitioner-accused would deposit certain amounts. These set of orders are challenged as recording statements which were allegedly not made or made under compulsion, of circumstances.3. With the enactment and coming into force of the Act, offences under Section 135 read with Section 151 were created. The said provisions read as follows:135. Theft of ...

Shyam Gopal Gupta Vs. Sanjeev Bhargava

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)BC524; 2007(99)DRJ184; 2008(2)KLT848

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Crl. L.P. No. 86/2004The leave petition stands disposed.Crl.Appeal No. 659/2007 (to be numbered)1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31st May, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby he acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the NI Act').2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that two cheques issued by the respondent to the complainant, each for a sum of Rs. one Lac, got dishonoured for reasons of 'account closed'. A legal notice of demand was sent to the accused but no payment was made. The complainant/appellant thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The respondent admitted receipt of loan and execution of documents of loan and issuance of cheques. He, however denied the receipt of notice of demand as also his liability to pay the cheque amount. The complainant was the tenant of the respondent. The respond...

Raj Karan and ors. Vs. Land and Building Department and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT460

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. The said writ petitions were filed seeking directions to the respondents to make allotment of alternative plots in favor of the appellants in view of '1/3rd share of acquired land measuring 28 bighas and 6 biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Sahupur, New Delhi acquired by the Land Acquisition Award dated 1.9.1986 under the scheme of large scale acquisition.'3. It was stated in the writ petitions that one of the brothers, Sh. Raj Karan applied for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land in Village Sahupur on 27th December, 1987. It was also stated in the said writ petitions that Sh. Raj Karan applied for allotment of alternative plot on behalf of all his brothers.4. The land Acquisition Officer wrote letters on 21st June, 1991 and 2nd April, 1993 asking Shri Raj Karan to submit the documents in...