Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Shri Krishan Lal S/O Shri Molar Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this application, applicant seeks direction to respondents to promote him as Helper Safaiwala in grade of Rs. 2650-4000/- from the date his junior Shri Gaje Singh had been promoted with all consequential benefits, including back wages, costs, etc.2. Facts as stated are that he was appointed as Safaiwala on 16.05.1970 under DRM, Northern Railway, New Delhi. In 2002 he came to know that Gaje Singh was drawing higher salary, i.e. Rs. 3720/- in comparison to him as Rs. 3475/-. Therefore, he made representation highlighting such anomaly, followed by reminders. In the meantime, respondents issued seniority list dated 09.08.2004, which did not include his name. On perusal of said list, it came to his notice that Gaje Singh was further promoted to grade of Rs. 2650-4000/- w.e.f. 21.02.2000. In such circumstances, he made further representation highlighting arbitrary and discriminatory approach of respondents, which remained unconsidered.3. Ms. Meenu Mainee contended that applicant has b...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Tractors Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT760

Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The question of law that has been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the Central Subsidy received by the assessed under 10% Central Outright Grant Scheme 1971 in respect of the backward area of Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh could not go to reduce the cost of the plant & machinery for the purposes of calculating the allowable amount of investment allowance? 2. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. : [1994]210ITR830(SC) , the question that was considered by the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Central Subsidy should not be deducted from the actual cost of assets for the purposes of allowing depreciation3. The Supreme Court considered the case law in detail and concluded that the expression 'actual cost' needs to be interpreted liberally. The subsidy does n...

Rameshwar and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ760

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of This Court for quashing of an order made by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.4.2005, and all further criminal proceedings.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as ``complainant'`), in a complaint under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code filed on 31.3.2005 alleged that the petitioner was guilty of having committed offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 501 read with 120-B/34 IPC. It was alleged that the complainant was dishonestly induced by the accused persons to deliver valuable goods namely, textile yarn. It was alleged that the accused had approached the complainant to deliver goods to M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. alleged to be registered with Sales Tax Authorities. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused also held out that goods could be purchased without payment of tax, against ST-1 Forms. According to the complainant a copy of the registra...

Rakesh Kumar @ Mukri Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ159

Aruna Suresh, J.1. In the present Appeal appellant (accused) Rakesh Kumar @ Mukri has assailed the judgment dated 3rd August, 2001 and order on sentence dated 8th August, 2001 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi was pleased to hold him guilty of having committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The story of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 15th August, 1998 on the occasion of Janmashtami Constable Anant Ram (PW14) and Constable Jitender (PW8) were posted on duty at Shiv Mandir, Basti Julhan, Gali Paharwali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. At about 6.00/6.15 P.M. on information from some children that one person had been stabbed, Constable Anant Ram (PW14) went to the spot in front of house No. 1913, Basti Julhan, and found Bale Ram lying on the r...

Shri Satya Bhan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT85

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest on the delayed amount of gratuity. 2. Petitioner, who was working as a Railway Gangman, pursued his educational career and finished metriculation examination and also in due course, was promoted as Permanent Way Mistri in the grade of Rs. 380-560. Petitioner superannuated on 30th June, 2002. He submitted a representation for release of payment of pension, gratuity and other retirement dues together with interest on 9.10.2002. As far as payment of pension and its commuted value and other dues are concerned, the cheque was prepared on 27th June, 2002 i.e. even prior to the date of superannuation. However, with regard to gratuity, a 'No Demand Certificate' was required to be issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) Northern Railway, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi where the petitioner had last served. This 'No Demand Certificate' was issued only on 9th Ju...

Mahadev Prasad Pant Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ167

Aruna Suresh, J.1. By this common judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 337/2002, Mahadev Prasad Pant v. State of Delhi and Criminal Appeal No. 338/2002, Sudershan Dutta v. State of Delhi arising out of the judgment dated 22nd February, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby both the appellants were held guilty for committing murder of Shri K.M.S. Butalia and Smt. Geeta Butalia and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months each under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months each under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 397 IPC for robbing the deceased persons of their valuables including jewelry, utensils, electrical items. etc. 2. T...

Ashok Kumar Vs. Shiv Bhagwan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ748

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 for quashing of criminal proceedings filed by the respondent/complainant.2. Briefly the facts are that that the complainant claimed that the petitioner was known to him. Both the parties are empanelled contractors with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The complainant's version is that the petitioner approached him in 1999, painting a rosy picture and holding out that he had secured work order at Division 16, from the Executive Engineer, MCD for execution of works during a particular period. It was further alleged that the accused led the complainant to believe that he was unable to execute the work despite lapse of considerable period as he had insufficient finance, and lacked experience. It was alleged that the petitioner told him that default in execution would entail a great loss of goodwill, besides monetary loss, and thereforee sought his help.3. It was alleged that the complainant, a registered contractor of MCD...

B.S.N.L. vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ159CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant requires permission of the Committee to persue an appeal before this Tribunal. The permission has not been obtained on file despite two adjournments. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as non-maintainable.2. The appellant will be at liberty to seek restoration of the appeal in the event of receiving the required clearance....

Dhan Shree Publicity Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ161CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. This is a stay application filed along with appeal challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 31.10.06. According to the appellant, they are engaged in painting the readymade material as given to them on the walls, at site as provided to them, thus rendering the service of painter. It was contended that they are not in any way undertaking any activity relating to making or repairing or advertising. In their statements made before the lower authorities they have stated that the activity undertaken by them cannot come under the definition of advertising agency. The fact that the appellant are only manufacturing the sign boards as per the requirement of customers is not contested. In this connection, the appellant relies upon this Tribunal's judgment in the case of Star Neon Sign v. CCE, Chandigarh , extract of which reads as follows: We find that the term 'Advertising Agency' is defined in the Act and as per the definition the Advertising Agency is to mean any commercial...

Cce Vs. S.R.F. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ166CESTATNew(Delhi)

2. The appeal of the revenue contends that service tax was rightly payable by the respondent in regard to technical know how fee paid by it to French Company during the year 2002-03. The contention is that the said technical know how fee attracted service tax as "Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service".3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is that the appeal does not context the finding of the Commissioned Appeals) in para 11 of his order and therefore, no relief can be claimed. Para 11 of the order may be read: 11. I also agree with the contention of the Appellant that, even if it is presumed, that the said payment is for "scientific or technical consultancy services, it is not covered as there was no service tax during the relevant period, as it has been provided prior to 16.7.01 (date on which service tax levied on such service). During April'02 - March'03 the Appellant has paid Rs. 21589267/- for technical know how licence fee and services provided from 199...