Delhi Court May 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.
Prem Singh @ Fauzi Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ635
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos.391 of 2005 and 774 of 2005 seek to challenge a common judgment delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2001 arising out of F.I.R. No. 126 of 1998, registered at Police Station Alipur, whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 29.03.2005 has held the appellants, namely, Prem Singh @ Fauzi and Samson @ Raju, guilty for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Further by his order dated 31.03.2005, has awarded sentence of life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year to each of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. However, the appellants were awarded the benefit of Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment under challenge are as under:.that on 26.4.98 at about 8.40 PM, the duty officer at P.S. Ali...
Mrs. Nishi Sharma Vs. Shri Subhash Chandra Mehra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT10
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent/landlord filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on grounds of bona fide requirement of the premises for residential use of himself and his family. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction proceedings and leave was granted by the order dated 22.11.2000. Para-8 of the said order sets out that the basis for the grant of leave was that the claim of the petitioner that the respondent was possessed of an alternative accommodation was disputed by stating that the property in question belong to his mother. Since the status of that property was not clear, leave was so granted. The parties led their evidence and thereafter in terms of order dated 7.8.2002 the eviction petition was allowed in respect of the tenanted premises consisting of the entire floor situ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary, Director of I.G. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR619(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12th April, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short as 'Tribunal') in IT(SS) No. 341/Del/2003 for the block assessment period 1990-91 to 18th January, 2000 whereby the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material.2. Premises of M/s I.G. Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessed is a Director and of the assessed were searched on 18th January, 2000 and a document marked as Annexure A-37 was found and seized. The said document contained the following entries:Annexure A-37 (Page 13)'Cash RB- 31.50Ch. 9.50--------41.0016.50--------57.5031.5016.50--------48.003. As per the Assessing officer, the assessed did not render any Explanationn of these entries in the document and thus, the Assessing Officer took Rs. 48 lacs as assessed's income from undisclosed sources.4. The assessed filed an appeal ...
D.T.C. Vs. Ram Bhaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: 148(2008)DLT47
Hima Kohli, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner corporation praying inter alias for a writ of certiorari for quashing of the award dated 7th January, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court whereunder it was held that the services of the respondent workman were terminated illegally and that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading up to the present petition are as follows. The respondent workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner corporation. On 7th January, 1993, when the respondent workman was performing his duties on Bus No. 9794, the bus was checked at Sarai and he was challaned for issuing tickets of lesser denomination than what was the due fare. He was placed under suspension for the alleged misconduct. Thereafter, an enquiry followed, pursuant to which the services of the respondent workman were terminated w.e.f. 3rd October,1994. As against this, the res...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)57; [2007]294ITR310(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 14th July, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA No. 3966-67/Del/2002 relevant for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95.2. In this appeal, we are concerned only with the assessment year 1993-94.3. The assessed had filed its return of income on 27th December, 1993 and declared a loss. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 7th December, 1995. Subsequently, he sought to reopen the assessment by issuing a notice dated 30th March, 2000 under Section 148 of the Act. The reason for reopening the completed assessment was to tax the waiver of interest allegedly not offered to tax by the assessed.4. It appears that the assessed was facing some financial problems and, thereforee, it had taken term loans from some banks and financial institutions. The assessed was unable to pay interest on these loans either to the ban...
Cce Vs. Adh Agencies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)7STR660
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 15.09.2005. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has heavily relied upon this Tribunal's order in the case of Mahavir Ceramic v. CCE hold that the consignment agent is not liable to pay Service Tax.According to him, the respondent was neither consignment agent nor clearing agent nor forwarding agent nor the services provided by a consignment agent had been made taxable. Commenting on the agreement entered into by the respondent with Bayer ABS Ltd. and ADH Agencies, the Commissioner held that, the respondent was a consignment stockist.Accordingly, the demand for Service Tax was dropped along with penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner in the order-in-original dated 7.3.2005.2. The learned DR for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) STR (355) (T-LB), according which even i...
Cce Vs. Pandey Bhootpurva Sainik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ150CESTATNew(Delhi)
1. None represented the Respondent despite notice. The Revenue, who is the appellant in this case, is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.08.2005. The Commissioner had observed that, the penal provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act would be applicable in those cases where liability to Service Tax had been ascertained in accordance with Section 68 of the Act, on a person, but the assessee fails to pay the same. He, however, found that in the subject case there was no ascertainment of liability under Section 68 of the Act. This lead him to conclude that, invocation of penal provisions of Section 76 of the Act is not justified and the penalty thus imposed was untenable.2. Aggrieved by this decision, the Revenue has filed this appeal. The arguments advanced by the learned DR recalls to us the words of Voltaire who had remarked that governments need both shepherds and butchers. He relies upon the Hon'ble Kerala High Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner of ...
Shri Shoukat Rai Malhotra Vs. Shri Ajay Mathur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT695; 2007(97)DRJ438; (2008)149PLR69
Gita Mittal, J.1. By this judgment I propose to decide the present suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by Shri Shoukat Rai Malhotra against Shri Ajay Mathur who is stated to be the owner of a vacant plot admeasuring 4400 sq. yards bearing No. K-224 in Khasra No. 660 in the Revenue Estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil - Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110062. The suit came up for hearing on 4th February, 2005. Despite repeated summons and notices issued to the defendant, he could be served only by the substituted mode by publication of a proclamation in the newspaper as well as by affixation of the summons at his last known address and on the notice board of this court. Publication of the summons was effected in the daily newspaper Tribune in its Delhi and Chandigarh edition in the issue dated 27th September, 2005. As the defendant failed to put in appearance, the defendant was directed to be proceeded ex-parte by orders passed on 14th December, 2005. On the same date, the ...
BhasIn Motors (i) P. Ltd. Vs. N.D.P.L.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: 142(2007)DLT116
S. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioner had an electricity connection with the sanctioned load of 83 KW for industrial purposes installed at its premises at 56-B, Rama Road, Najafgarh Industrial Area, Delhi. It was an authorised dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited till May 2003. The Petitioner had in 2000 purchased the property with the aforementioned electricity connection. On 14.3.2001, the petitioner applied for a transfer of the connection to its name. In relation to a misuse demand from 14.7.2000 till 14.3.2001, the matter was placed before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) and disposed of by it by an order dated 29.12.2003.2. According to the Petitioner, on 11.9.2004 some officials of the Respondent North Delhi Power Limited (NDPL) visited the premises and prepared an inspection report. The inspection report concluded that the Petitioner was indulging in Dishonest Abstraction of Energy (DAE). Thereafter, a bill for Rs. 15,58,955/- was sent to the Petitioner. 3. Consequent upon the inspection ...
Dr. Vijay Mallya Vs. Enforcement Directorate
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2007
Reported in: 141(2007)DLT202; [2008]82SCL427(Delhi)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This revision proceeding impugns an order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, charging the petitioner of committing offences punishable under Section 56, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereafter called 'FERA'). 2. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner pursuant to a complaint filed on 8.3.2000. The Chief Enforcement Officer, FERA considered attendance of the petitioner, to be necessary, in connection with investigation and had issued summons on several dates, viz 15.9.1999, 7.10.1999, 8.11.1999 and 21.12.1999, under Section 40 for his appearance together with documents such as his passport and correspondence etc. relating to an agreement. According to the complaint, an agreement, dated 1.12.1995 had been entered into by the petitioner with Flavio Briatore of M/s Benetton Formula Ltd. London. The complainant had required the petitioner's presence on 27.9.1998, 8.11.1999 and 26.11.1999. The complaint alleged that...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »