Delhi Court December 2007 Judgments

Arti Arora Vs. Phool Chand Jain

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ615

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Arti Arora has challenged orders dated 16.4.2007 allowing Phool Chand Jain to amend his plaint in the suit filed by him seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction as also permitting him to amend his written statement in the suit filed by Arti Arora claiming a decree for possession and damages.2. Arti Arora has sought possession of a garage on the ground floor from Phool Chand Jain. She claimed that his status was that of a licensee. Phool Chand Jain has sought a declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the entire first floor, entire barsati floor and the garage under Usha Rani and Ravi Prakash.3. The amendment allowed for is to permit Phool Chand Jain to plead that during pendency of the two suits he had acquired the title to the garage under the sale deed dated 29.12.1995 purportedly executed by Ravi Prakash.4. Whether or not the impugned orders should be sustained require a look at the pleaded antecedent title of the parties pertaining to p...

Jagdeep Singh Saluja Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ148CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a proprietorship concern, engaged in handling and transporting fertilizers of various fertilizer companies. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax under heading of "Cargo Handling Service" and imposed penalties for late payment of tax and non-filing of the returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is undertaking the activities of loading and unloading of cargo in his individual capacity and, therefore, they are not entitled to pay the tax as stated in Board Circular F. No. B. 11/1/2002-TRU dated 1.8.2002. He further submits the appellant voluntarily paid the tax before issue of show cause notice in order to avoid the legal complicity. Therefore, imposition of penalty is not justified. He re...

Ganesh Automobiles Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ14CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76, 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in providing service under the category of "Authorised Service Station". They obtained registration in the year 2001. Proceeding was initiated by show cause notice dated 21.8.2003 for non filing of ST-3 return for quarter ending September 2002 and March 2003. Thereafter, the appellant deposited the tax and filed the returns. Another show cause notice dated 29th June 2005 was issued, proposing the demand of tax and to appropriate the amount of tax as already deposited by them and to impose penalty under Section 76, 78 and 77 of the Act, 1994, which is the subject matter in the present appeal. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 1,61,128/- and appropriated the same as deposited by them before issue of the show cause notice. He also directed recovery of interest. He fu...

Golden Prince Wine India Pvt. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)13STJ12CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are receiver of transport service by road. Service tax was introduced on 01.01.2005. By letter dated 31.10.2005, the Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellant levy of tax on such service. Accordingly, the appellant applied for registration on 30.12.2005. They also paid tax of Rs. 76,847/- and education cess of Rs. 1537/- on 31.12.2005 for the period April 2005 to December 2005. But for the period 01.01.2005 to 31st March 2005, they paid tax of Rs. 12,803/- and education cess of Rs. 256/- on 22nd March 2006 due to non availability of the figures during the material period. The adjudicating authority confirmed the tax already deposited before issue of the show cause notice. He imposed penalty of Rs. 89,650/- under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Sections 77 and further penalty of...

Raj Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Om Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Raj Kumar Sharma, applicant herein, through present Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the orders at Annexures A1 dated 16.05.2005, A2 dated 19.05.2003 and A2A dated 25.07.2007 being violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and procedure for departmental enquiry as contained under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1965').2. Pursuant to involvement in a case registered against him under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, and also to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, order Annexure A/1 was passed after...

Sh. MohsIn Malik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Employment Notice was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh on 26.10.2002, inviting response from qualified persons for direct recruitment to the post of Diesel/Electric Assistant Driver.Since the applicant possessed the obligatory qualifications, he had responded. In due course, he had been invited to participate in the written test on 14.10.2004 followed by tests, which were specific for the job. In respect of empanelled candidates, it was also necessary that they undergo medical test. The applicant had reported for such test at the Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Ambala Canttt. The report-dated 15.10.2004, however, did not clear him as it was observed that he did not fully conform to the accepted vision standards.2. It is evident that the applicant was not expecting such a setback, and, according to him, he had had consultations with private medical practitioners, and on the strength of the certificates received by him, had filed an appeal, as was provided in...

Shiksha Devi and ors. Vs. Gaon Sabha Rithala and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT697

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Dispute pertains to agricultural land in village Rithala which as stated in the plaint was acquired vide award No. 16/85-86 and vested in the Union of India.2. Contemporaneous with the proceedings for acquisition of the land, the revenue assistant had initiated proceedings under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reforms Act on the ground that the land had been put to non-agricultural use. A conditional order required by law was passed giving 3 months time to the recorded bhuomidars to restore the land to agricultural use. It was followed by a vesting order dated 26.4.1985 holding that since land was not restored to agricultural use it stood vested in the Gaon Sabha.3. The land owners had a grievance that proceedings under Section 81 were concluded without notice to them. They moved an application before the Revenue Assistant for review of the order dated 26.4.1985. Review was dismissed on the ground that since award was pronounced and lands had vested in the Central Gove...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meenakshi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ2478

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Counsel for the appellant states that as per the instructions received by him, application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal. But he has not received any instructions as regards any order passed on the said application. Mr. Ashok Popli, counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, states that no such order on the alleged application of the appellant was passed by the Tribunal. He further states that it is more so because of the fact that the claim petition was duly contested by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Counsel also contends that written statement was also filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as would be apparent from para B of the judgment. Counsel further states that even Rohit Kumar, the driver of the offending vehicle, appeared in the witness-box. The contention of the counsel for respondents is that these facts would clearly show that there was no...

JaIn Steel Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel Products classifiable under the Chapter 72 of schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.On 11^th July 2003, the Central Excise officers visited the appellant's factory and verified the stock of finished goods and raw material.There was a shortage of raw materials of 7.055 M.T. was found. Shri Kuldeep Kumar in his statement stated that the shortage was occurred due to the reasons that they have not physically verified the stock over a period of time and it is due to burning loss. It is also noticed that the appellants cleared galvanized DLB Steel structure at nil of duty to M/s DMRC Limited, New Delhi by availing exemption Notification No. 29/03 dated 01/04/03 but they have not reversed the amount of 8% as required under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 1,01,293.00 and imposed penalty of equal amount...

impex Trading Gmbh Vs. Anunay Fab. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR50(Delhi); 2008(100)DRJ69

Aruna Suresh, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking interim relief for restraining the respondent No. 1 from encashing/invoking Letter of Credit No. DIA101180 for 321346.14 Euro (Rs. 1,89,72,276.11p in Indian currency) or in the alternative some interim measure or relief be provided to the petitioner to secure the amount of 1,83,754.91 (Rs. 1,08,48,889.89p in Indian currency) till the dispute in the proposed arbitration between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 is adjudicated upon by the arbitral tribunal.2. Petitioner company entered into three separate agreements with the respondent for supply of manufactured goods/items to the petitioner. These agreements are:(1) Consignment Contract No. PJN 1192/07 dated February 22, 2007 for supply/export of Fitted Bed Sheet, solid color, knitted 100% polyester micro fiber, single jersey 135-140 gsm with ...