Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR13

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 1,30,831/- and penalty.The demand of service tax was confirmed by considering that the applicant was providing the service of storage and warehouse keeper.The contention of applicant is that in fact as per the direction of Central Government, they have to keep a certain stock of sugar. This is a statutory obligation. The applicant relied upon the stay order dated 3.7.2006 in the case of Nawanshahr Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. CCE Jalandhar where on similar ground, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of amount of tax and penalty.2. In view of the above stay order, pre-deposit of amount of service tax and penalty is waived. The stay petition is allowed.The registry is directed to list this appeal alongwith ST/Appeal No.132-136/2006....

Suresh Pal Singh S/O Shri Dalip Vs. Employees State Insurance

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged the order dated 15.5.2007 (page 11) whereby his representation has been rejected and order dated 19.10.2005 (page 15) whereby he was promoted and posted to West Bengal.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was posted in Haryana region from 1984 to September 1995 but thereafter he was posted in Rajasthan where he remained till July 2002 as he was transferred back in Haryana in July 2002.3. Vide order dated 19.10.2005, 170 Insurance Inspectors were promoted as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis wherein applicant is at Sl. No.66. Applicant gave a representation but yet applicant was relieved w.e.f. 6.1.2006. Being in difficulty, applicant even gave in writing that he is willing to forego promotion as he is required at Haryana for the marriage of his daughters but the same was not acceded to, therefore, he filed OA No. 2435/2006. It was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2007 with a direction to consider and pass a reasoned order on the request ...

inspector S.K. KaIn S/O Col. S.C. Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, an SHO in Delhi Police, received a show cause notice dated 8.10.2005 from Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Delhi, whereby a proposal of punishment of censure was made on the basis of records that there was poor disposal of cases in the Police Station under his jurisdiction. This low disposal pertained to various categories of cases. After considering applicant's reply to the show cause the proposal was confirmed. A censure entry has been recorded as against him. The appeal filed is rejected. Applicant is now agitating this punishment of censure vide present OA.2. The counsel for applicant were heard at the admission stage. It could be noted that the impugned order was given on the basis of facts and figures on which no dispute could normally arise. Out of 149 pending investigating cases, only 7 were disposed off, and of 1056 cases of properties pending in the malkhana, none were disposed off.Similarly in respect of 28 pending inquest cases, no inquest fi...

Mr. Lalit Kumar Bagla Vs. Bindal Agro Chemicals Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ606

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The battle of the 'Rolls Royce' - this title would truly epitomize this long drawn out battle for the last sixteen years between the parties. Mr. Lalit Kumar Bagla ('Bagla/Plaintiff' for short) sold a Blue Rolls Royce car bearing chasis No. ANH-24457 to M/s Bindal Agrochem Ltd ('Bindal/Defendant' for short). Bagla claims that the balance price is due while the Bindal and Oswals claim that the full price stands paid. 2. Bagla claims to be a reputed dealer in imported cars, in an era when imported cars were a great luxury and there were limited numbers of both sellers and purchasers. M/s Bindal Agrochem. Ltd is a public limited company while defendant No. 2/Mr.Abhey Oswal in CS(OS) No. 1477/1994 is the Managing Director of M/s Bindal Agrochem Ltd/defendant No. 1 in CS(OS) No. 1477/1994. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 2.3. The controversy arose out of the initial transaction whereby it is alleged that on 27.09.1991 Mr. Abhey Oswal visited the premis...

ircon International Limited Vs. Shri Krishna Trading Co. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR479(Delhi); 2009(99)DRJ690

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner, a Government of India Undertaking, was desirous of supplying stone boulders to Bangladesh and elicited offers for the same. A tender was floated dated 6th/8th September, 1999 and the respondent submitted a tender which was opened on 24.9.1999. There were apparently some subsequent discussions between the parties for renegotiation of terms which resulted in a letter from the petitioner dated 6.10.1999 and a revised offer from the respondent dated 12.10.1999. This revised offer was accepted vide a letter of the petitioner dated 6.11.1999.2. A formal contract was also executed on 7.12.2000. The respondent made the supplies but, according to the petitioner, there were deficiency in both quantity and quality. The result of the same was that against the payment sought for by the respondent of Rs.25,22,772.48 the petitioner paid only an amount of Rs.16,82,037.48 and deducted an amount of Rs.8,40,735/-. This gave rise to disputes between the parties. Cl...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Public School

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)705; [2009]318ITR234(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 23rd March, 2007 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), Delhi Bench 'H' in ITA No. 483/Del/2006 relevant for the asst. yr. 2003-04.2. The only issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the IT Rules, 1962 ('Rules'). The assessed's school gives free education to the children of the staff. The question was whether this could be treated as a perquisite in their hands. Rule 3(5) of the Rules reads as follows:(5) The value of benefit to the employee resulting from the provision of free or concessional educational facilities for any member of his household shall be determined as the sum equal to the amount of expenditure incurred by the employer in that behalf or where the educational institution is itself maintained and owned by the employer or where free educational facilities for such member of employees household are allowed in any other educational institution by reason ...

M.P. Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Ltd. (Formerly Know ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR339(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT557

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) & 11(8)(B) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for appointment of an arbitrator by the Court. Petitioner was awarded work by the respondent Union of India, Ministry of Railways, vide letter/contract dated 97/TK-II/MPW/1 dated 29.1.1997 for supply of Sal Wood Sleepers. A dispute arose inter se the parties regarding the payment claimed by the petitioner for supply of wooden sleepers. Petitioner, thereforee, sent a legal notice dated 11.7.2005 to the respondent invoking Clause 2900(a) of the Indian Railways Standard (hereinafter referred to as 'IRS') condition of contract to appoint an independent person as a sole arbitrator unconnected with the respondent preferably or retired Judge of any Hon'ble High Court or the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute and differences. The said legal notice was duly received by the respondent on or before 14.7.2005. However, the re...

Chand Krishan Bhalla Vs. Mohinder Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ446

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. On 5.11.1999 the following substantial question of law was framed:Whether the finding rendered by the courts below that the respondent has established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent on the facts and circumstances of this case.2. I re-frame the question of law as under:Whether the finding rendered by the courts below that the respondent has established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent is correct on the facts and circumstances of this case.3. Facts constituting the backdrop with reference whereto the question of law has to be answered are that property bearing Municipal No. XIV/2199A/A (Old), new number being 10213-17, Manak Pura, Shidipura (Bhagat Singh Nagar), Karol Bagh was owned by one Mohd. Shafi and was declared to be an evacuee property. The settlement commissioner sold the same to one Ganesh Dass vide sale certificate no. 231 registered in suppleme...

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. R.J. Shah and Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ685

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited ('SJVN' for short) assigned the work to M/s. R.J. Shah & Co Ltd. ('contractor' for short)for construction of 8.5m X 8.5m finished D shaped 798 metres long Main Access Tunnel for power house cavern of Nathpa Jhakri Hydel Project at Jhakri District, Shimla. The work was completed by the contractor. However, disputes arose between the parties OMP No.225 of 2006 & OMP No.319 of 2006 Page No.1 of 8 resulting in the appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal of three technical persons, who have made and published an award dated 9.7.2005. The award is assailed by both the parties. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to set out some of the facts relating to the dispute. The work on the access tunnel was being carried out departmentally when the work was assigned to the contractor. The case of the contractor is that though originally the tunnel was a straight one from point EL 1042.8 mtrs., the actual work done was...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gulati Industrial Fabrication (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)494

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 3rd March, 2006, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F. in ITA No. 4288/Del/2005 relevant for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. The AO had issued a notice under Section 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for reopening the assessment of the assessee.3. The assessed demanded the reasons for reopening the assessment and those were also supplied to it. The reasons referred to a statement made by one Mr. Sanjay Rastogi to the effect that the assessed had taken accommodation entries to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs from a front company of Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, that is, M/s Hallmark Healthcare Ltd. The assessed required the AO to supply it a copy of the statement wherein the name of M/s Hallmark Healthcare Ltd. and the assessed appear. By letter dt. 14th Feb., 2005, the AO supplied the statement given by Mr. Sanjay Rastogi. This contained question No. 14 and the answer given by Mr. Rastogi thereto.4. In para 11 of the impugned order, the Trib...