Delhi Court June 2007 Judgments

Anita Sachdeva Vs. Deepak Kumar Sachdeva

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 142(2007)DLT550

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.9.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge Delhi in HMA No. 363 of 1990. By the impugned judgment the trial court dissolved the marriage between the parties both on the ground of desertion as well as on the ground of cruelty.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the parties are married on 11.12.1986. In March 1987, while she was in the family way, the appellant left the matrimonial home and insisted that unless the respondent here set up a separate residence she would not come back to the matrimonial home. It is stated that the appellant returned in June 1987 when a separate kitchen was arranged by the respondent. Again in September 1987 the father of the appellant took the appellant to her parents' house for the delivery of the child. A male child was born on 24.10.1987. Thereafter, despite the persuasion of the respondent the appellant did not return to the matrimo...

Darshana Devi Vs. Anil Kumar Saini

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC191

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.2.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) Delhi in HMA No. 532 of 1989 by which the ADJ dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act'). While the trial Court accepted the plea of the petitioner (respondent herein) that the appellant had treated him with cruelty, the Court negatived the plea for divorce on the ground of desertion. Aggrieved by the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, the wife is in appeal.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Delhi on 18.10.1985. A son was born to the parties on 8.2.1987. The narration of facts in the petition for divorce pertaining to the ground of cruelty cites three incidents of cruelty. The first incident is of 11.10.1987. It is stated that the appellant came to the house of the respondent and raised a hue and cry outside the ho...

Om Parkash Vs. Rajni

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2008)DMC16; 2007(96)DRJ641

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 1.4.1997 passed by the Addition District Judge (ADJ) Delhi dismissing the appellant's petition HMA No. 219 of 1990 for divorce from respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion.2. The present appeal was filed in 1997 but when the case was listed for final hearing on 20th March 2007 it was found that the records could not be traced. Thereafter with the help of the lawyers on both sides, the file was reconstructed and the matter was finally heard.3. By the order dated 20.3.2007 the lawyers on both sides were asked to explore the possibility of a settlement. However, at the next hearing, it was reported that no settlement was possible. The appeal was thereforee heard finally on merits and orders reserved4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that parties were married on 22.1.1980 and a male child was born on 23.12.1980. The parties have been living separately since 15.2.1981.5....

Cyrus Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC443

1. The appellants have challenged the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.04.2006 dismissing the appeals and upholding the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim of the appellants on account of Education Cess levied under the Finance Act, 2004.2. The claim of the appellants for refund of Education Cess was based on the Notification bearing No. 56/2002 dated 14.11.2002, which provided for exemption to the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (other than the goods specified in Annexure I to the Notification), from so much of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the three Acts, namely, The Central Excise Act, 1944; The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; and The Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of...

R.C. Goel Vs. I.R.C.T.C. Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ407

J.P. Singh, J.1. This Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec 10 of the High Court Act is directed against the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by Single Bench allowing application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 in CPC and dismissing applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, thereby vacating the interim stay orders.2. We have heard Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate learned Counsel for the Appellant.3. Briefly the facts are that the Appellant - Plaintiff was granted a licence for management of on-board catering service on Paschim Express Train, vide letter dated 28.12.2001. The licence was initially for 5 years.4. A show cause notice dated 12.1.2007 for termination of the licence was served upon the Appellant, on the ground that during inspection of the subject train on 13.10.2006 serious irregularities were found. The Appellant submitted reply dated 24.1.2007 denying the allegations. But licence was not renewed as communicated to the appellant by lett...

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

3. It is being pointed out that the very issue had come before this Tribunal in the case of another distillery viz. M/s Gwalior Distilleries Ltd. and stay was refused by the Tribunal. We may read the stay order: Heard both the sides. The appellant filed this application for waiver of Service tax and penalty. The issue involved in this case is fully covered against the appellants by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Vindhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006 5 STT 254. The appellant pointed out that a SLP is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against this decision. 2. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the applicants are directed to deposit the amount of Service tax within a period of eight weeks. On deposit of the amount of service tax, the pre-deposit of penalty is waived.4. The present applicant's position is identical. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deposit tax demand within a period of eight week...

ito Vs. BhasIn Motors India (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals by revenue are directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, dated 19-4-2005 in an appeal against order under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) treating the assessee as assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source.2. The assessee herein is a dealer in car, spares and services of vehicles manufactured by Maruti India Ltd. The assessee entered into a business collaboration agreement on 16-12-1997 with M/s. West Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd. (in short 'WDAPL'). Pursuant to the agreement the assessee made certain payments. The assessee treated the same as payment to contractor and accordingly, deducted tax at source under Section 194C of the Act. The assessing officer held that in substance the payment is towards hire charges by way of rent for the premises of M/s. WDAPL utilized in the business of dealership of the car. He accordingly held that the assessee should have deducted tax @ ...

Beg Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)149PLR42

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.1985 passed by the Financial Commissioner allowing the revision petitions, being Cases Nos. 293-294/1984-CA, filed by the Gaon Sabha Dera Mandi, Respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Holdings Act'). By the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner set aside the orders dated 11.1.1982 and 20.3.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer allotting certain lands in favor of the petitioner.2. The consolidation proceedings in Village Dera Mandi commenced in the year 1974 and concluded on 21.7.1984. According to the petitioner, when the consolidation proceedings started, it was notified by the Consolidation Officer that the Abadi land would valued at Rs. 1.5 i.e. one and half times the value of the agriculture land. It was also announced that every resident family was permitted to apply for a land in the Abadi ranging from half a ...

Ajay Kumar Vs. Sunita

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)DMC684; 2007(97)DRJ580

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. Case No 294 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the appellant's petition seeking divorce from the respondent on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') was dismissed.The versions of the appellant and the respondent2. The parties were married on 25.6.1994 at Delhi. The appellant states that the marriage was not properly consummated because the respondent never offered herself for a complete sexual intercourse with the appellant. No child was, thereforee, born from the wedlock. It is stated that neither the respondent nor her parents disclosed the actual age and physical condition of the respondent prior to the marriage. It is stated that the appellant was not aware that the respondent was older than the appellant and thereforee the very foundation of the marriage was based on false and incorrect info...

Crown Wheels P. Ltd. Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ536; 2007LC(DEL)1423

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The petitioner is running a small scale industry for manufacturing of automobile parts at premises No. 77 Maya Puri, Delhi and it has a sanctioned industrial power connection of 120 HP (89.2 KWs) against K.No. 002-1316309 and 3 KW of industrial lighting against K.No. 1316317-IL. These electricity connections were granted to it by erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board ('DVB').2. An inspection was carried out by the DVB on 3.4.1989. The report noted that the connected load was 220.25 HP against the sanctioned load of 120 HP and 2.7 HP of industrial lighting. Further it was alleged that there was subletting to M/s. Okhla Small Scale Industries, a unit in the adjacent premises. On the basis of the said inspection report a letter dated 1.6.1989 was issued by the DVB to the petitioner levying a penalty for exceeding the load and for subletting.3. The petitioner disputed this liability by contending that Okhla Small Scale Industries was a separate unit with a separate connection. T...