Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Shivaai Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Rites Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR256(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), is aggrieved against the action of the respondent No. 2 Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'DTC') in inviting tenders from national and international firms/joint ventures/consortium for allotment of about 225 shelters/sites on but basis against display of commercial advertisement thereon, as according to the petitioner it is given the contract for these sites and during the currency of the license agreement with the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 cannot take such a step.2. First, the factual matrix to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. As per the averments in the petition, DTC had earlier issued a tender pursuant where to the petitioner had also submitted its bid. This tender was for grant of advertisement rights on all the shelters (BQS/TKB) of the DTC falling in various zones and was for a period of three years. ...

Suresh Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT47; 2007(94)DRJ290; (2007)146PLR55

Rekha Sharma, J.1. Suresh Kumar is a teacher on the post of TGT (Maths) in C.L. Bhalla DAV Senior Secondary School, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He seeks his promotion to the post of PGT (Maths). According to the respondents he does not possess the requisite qualification and thereforee the prayer sought cannot be granted.2. As per the Recruitment Rules to the post of Lecturer/ PGT a copy of which has been placed on record by the respondents, the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post is a Masters degree in the subject concerned from a recognised university. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess a Masters degree in Mathematics. What he possess is a Masters degree in Statistics. He is M.Sc (Statistics). His case is that a degree in M.Sc (Statistics) is as good as holding a degree of M.Sc (Maths) and on that basis he claims that he fulfillls the qualification required for appointment to the post of PGT (Maths).3. It is common knowledge and it was also so su...

Allied Electronics and Magnetics Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incom ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)600; 139(2007)DLT703; [2008]304ITR160(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act) against the impugned order dated 31st January, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 4778/Del/03 for the assessment year 2000-01. By the said order the claim made by the Appellant under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act for write off of discarded/obsolete machinery amounting to Rs. 40,83,828/- was disallowed.2. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant-company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of floppy and other computer consumables. Till the close of the immediately preceding year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000, it had been manufacturing computer floppies. The plant and machinery installed in the financial year 1984-85 and 1994 had been extensively used by it for this purpose. As the technology in the field of computer consumables had advanced manifold since the installation of the plan...

Ng Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ232

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. Having rendered pensionable service in the Indian Army, the petitioner was considered for extension of service by two years in terms of a Government of India policy which envisages such extension. The authority considering him for the said benefit found him eligible and extended his service by a period of two years from 19.12.2005 to 18.12.2007. Some time later it transpired that the petitioner having been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 41(1) of the Army Act and sentenced to undergo detention for a period of ten days, was ineligible for any such extension. A show cause notice was accordingly served upon the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the order of grant of extension of service to him be not recalled and he be not discharged from service as he was already due for such discharge upon superannuation. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and is now before us challenging his proposed discharge w.e.f. 28.02.2...

Pradeep Bhalla Vs. Sangeeta and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ548

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Som Nath Bhalia, plaintiff in the suit died. Issue came up as to who should be brought on record as legal representative.2. His wife Sangita Bhalia filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC stating that her husband had executed a will in here favour. She sbught to be brought on record as the plaintiff.3. Impugned order dated 28th January, 2006 has brought on record the widow of the deceased as the plaintiff.4. It is urged before me that will was not probated and, therefore, the wife of the deceased could not have made any claim under the will. Objector is the nephew of the deceased.5. I need not note the laige number of authorities which, while dealing with Section 57 and Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have opined that pertaining to Hindus and in relation to wills executed in the Union Territory of Delhi, probate of the will is not a sine qua non for enforcing a right under the will.6. Decision of S.K. Kaul, J. reported as 2005 (VII) AD (Del...

Vikram Cement Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement. In connection with that, it engaged engineering and management consultants from abroad. During the period December 2002 to October 2004, certain payments were also made to those consultants. During the relevant period, these services were liable to Service Tax. Accordingly, on the value of the services, Service Tax was also paid, under protest.2. Subsequently, on 15-2-05, the appellant filed refund applications claiming return of the Service Tax (over Rs. Two lakhs) paid on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay the tax. The contention was that the tax was payable by the provider of the service, viz, foreign consultants. The refund application was rejected by the original authority and the first appellate authority. Hence the present appeal.3. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that in terms of Section 68(2) of Finance Act, during the relevant period, the tax was payable by the provider of the service. It i...

Jai Bharat Corp Chemical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant has challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise made on 27-10-2006, in which exemption under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E. dated 14-11-2002 and refund claims filed under the said notification and self credit option were rejected and as a result demand of Rs. 3,66,29,314/- was confirmed contemplating charging of interest. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, while issuing the said notification, a grave typing error has crept in as instead of showing the Khasra No. as 1123, it has mentioned it as 1923 and 1959 both of them do not exist. In this context, a copy of letter addressed by the Government of Jammu Kashmir, Industries & Commerce Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu dated 23-1-2007, addressed to the Joint Secretary, Tax Research Unit Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi was placed before us. A perusal of this letter reveals that the State Government has taken the plea before the C...

Chandrawati Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicants has filed appeals challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Ghaziabad dated 30-4-2004.2. The matter came up before this Tribunal on an earlier occasion too when this Tribunal directed the appellant to make pre-deposit vide its order dated 14-11-2005. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, which as on 1-9-2006 has set aside the said order of the Tribunal with the direction to decide their application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act afresh in the light of principles laid-down in the case of ITC v. CCE, Meerut-I and considering the affidavit filed by the applicant stating therein their financial conditions.3. The guidelines referred to by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, reproduced in the said order is as follows: In view of the above, the aforesaid authorities make it clear that the Court should not grant interim relief/stay of the recovery merely by a...

Vikram Cement Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ32CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of cement. In connection with that, it engaged engineering and management consultants from abroad. During the period December 2002 to October 2004, certain payments were also made to those consultants. During the relevant period, these services were liable to Service Tax. Accordingly, on the value of the services, Service Tax was also paid, under protest.2. Subsequently, on 15.2.05, the appellant filed refund applications claiming return of the Service Tax (over Rs. Two lakhs) paid on the ground that the appellant was not liable to pay the Tax. The contention was that the Tax was payable by the provider of the service, viz.foreign consultants. The refund application was rejected by the original authority and the first appellate authority. Hence the present appeal.3. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that in terms of Section 68(2) of Finance Act, during the relevant period, the tax was payable by the provider of the service. It is...

T.R.V. Electronics Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. M.G. Electronics Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC290; 138(2007)DLT630; 2007(95)DRJ457

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioners invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure 1973, for quashing a criminal complaint by which the respondent (hereafter called the complainant) had alleged commission of offences under Sections 138 and 142 Of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereafter called ``the Act'`)2. The complainant had alleged that a petitioner had issued a cheque on 5- 7-1996 for the sum of Rs. 1,60,165/- and when presented, the cheque was dishonoured. 'Upon this event the complainant issued a legal notice on 10-7-1996 to the petitioners demanding payment of the amount. It was alleged that the petitioners did not heed the notice after receiving it, on 17th of July 1996 and instead by a letter dated 13th of August 1996 asked to the complainant to the present the cheque again assuring that it would be honoured at that instance.' The complainant further alleged that after receiving the assurance the cheque was present...