Delhi Court July 2007 Judgments

Bowrings Fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Bureau of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT135

ORDER24.03.2005We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties at some length.Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Minutes of the Expert Committee dated 9th June, 2003 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs dated 22nd September, 2004.In view of the stand taken before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties it would not be necessary for us to notice the facts or the various contentions raised in the Writ Petition. Suffice it to note during the course of the hearing and upon instructions from the respective clients, counsel for the parties submit that the Writ Petition may be disposed of by a consent order. The agreed terms are:1. The Respondents would re-constitute a Committee who shall examine the paintings and pass a fresh order in regard to the matter in controversy.2. The Petitioner would be notified about the constitution of the Committee and when the Committee proposes to inspect the paintings subject matter of the presen...

M.C.D. Vs. Narender Kumar and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)ILLJ571Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated September 18,2003 passed by the Labour Court No. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. The brief facts for deciding the present writ petition are that pursuant to industrial disputes raised by the respondents, the appropriate Government made the following reference for adjudication as under:Whether the services of S/Sh. Narender Kumar and Inder Pal Sharma, casual/daily rated/muster roll workers have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect2. The Labour Court after taking into consideration the pleadings filed by the parties, evidence led by them and the documents filed on record, came to the conclusion that these respondents cannot be given protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as they did not complete 240 days of continuous service ...

Dr. (Mrs.) Vidyut Shikha Vs. Union Public Service Commission

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has challenged the short-listing criteria adopted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) (respondent No. 1) for inviting General Female Category (GFC, for short) applicants for interview for the post of Principal on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3. She has also sought direction to respondent no.1 [Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short)] to devise a fair, realistic, reasonable and equitable criteria for this purpose and hold fresh interviews accordingly for filling the 12 vacancies of Principals under GFC.2. The bare facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 24-30 July, 2004 inviting applications for various posts which, inter alia, included 90 posts of Principal (65 male and 25 female) in the Government Senior Secondary Schools under the Directorate of Education (Respondent No. 3), Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent No. 2). The applicant responded to the advertisement bu...

R.R. Construction and Sri Krishna Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals along with the stay applications challenge the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 27.02.2007, which held that, the appellants did not discharge, the tax liability on the services provided to BHEL, even though they received full payment on account of their services as per the contract entered into by them with BHEL, Jhansi.2. During the relevant period, the definition of 'Manpower Recruitment Agency' was to mean any commercial concern engaged in providing any service, directly or indirectly, in any manner for recruitment of manpower to a client." 3. We have recently, on 03.07.2007, rejected identical applications involving identical issue (Service Tax. Stay Applications No.1245-1246/07 in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 284-285/07) 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, we find that, prima facie, no case has been made out for waiver of pre-deposit for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 03.07.2007. Therefore, we direct the appellants to deposit the entire...

Rishabh Travels Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR575

1. Heard both sides. The applicant filed this application for modification of the stay order in pursuance to the order dt. 10.4.07 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: Ld. Counsel for the appellant states that subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal the department itself has waived 60% of the service tax liability in respect of operators like the petitioner and, therefore, the liability of the petitioner has substantially been reduced in terms of the said circular of service tax and the amount that has been deposited by the petitioner, fulfilled the condition of order passed by the Tribunal, if the balance amount after taking into account the waiving of tax for the period in question is only considered to be outstanding against the assessee. The assessee - appellant may move an appropriate application before the Tribunal bringing out these facts. If such application is made within 4 weeks, the Tribunal shall decide the said...

Zarubezhneft Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. All these appeals are filed by the assessees. They are directed against consolidated order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-10-2006 for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Grounds of appeal in all these cases are common and are as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the order of the ACIT, Circle-1, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as "Learned assessing officer") denying the exemption under Article-15 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Russian Federation from taxability of remuneration earned by the appellant during his stay period for total 49 days in India. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed in adjudicating this ground of appeal which is fully covered as per Clause (c) of para (2) of Article-15 of DTAA between India and France as held by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Uttaranchal High court in the case of CIT v. Sedco Forex International Drilling Co. 264 ITR 320. The...

Agarwal Trading Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)589

1. This appeal of the assessee for asst. yr. 2004-05 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 29th Dec, 2006.2. The first ground of appeal relates to disallowance of expenses out of telephone expenses claimed by the assessee. The facts of this issue are that the assessee firm, a trader of jadibooti, claimed telephone expenses to the tune of Rs. 28,672 which related to three telephones installed at the business premises. The AO disallowed 20 per cent of Rs. 28,672 on the premise that personal user of the telephones could not be ruled out. This disallowance was restricted to 10 per cent by learned CIT(A).3. I have heard rival submissions said circumspected the entire evidence available on record. There seems to be force in the submission of learned Authorised Representative that all the three telephones towards which expenses of Rs. 28,672 has been claimed are installed at the business premises of the assessee and therefore, there is no question of personal user of the teleph...

Rrb Consultants and Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112CTR(Delhi)794

1. There are as many as seven grounds taken by the assessee in this appeal which relates to the asst. yr. 2000-01, but they all centre around Section 80-IA of the IT. Act. The assessee is a company deriving income from the business of consultancy in renewable and non-conventional sources of energy and also income from power generation. It entered into a memorandum of understanding on 3rd July, 1990 with a Danish company under which it was to render expert advice and technical information relating to site identification and wind data on specific sites in India in relation to various types of wind energy including controllers, towers, central monitoring equipment, etc. The Danish company was one of the pioneers in wind energy in the world, especially windmills and the assessee was engaged in business as its sole and exclusive consultant in India. During the year under consideration, the assessee derived consultancy fees and service charges of Rs. 3,94,69,169 and other income of Rs. 1,35...

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Smt. Asha Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ548

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the suit of the respondent so far as prayer for recovery of possession and mesne profits were concerned. It is because of the reason that the learned trial Court returned the finding to the effect that the monthly rent of the premises in question, which are let out by the respondent to the appellant was Rs. 3300/- and, thereforee, jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The decree for recovery of Rs. 6000/- only is passed with proportionate costs and this amount represents arrears of two months' rent. Though the suit for possession and mesne profits is dismissed against the appellant, still appellant has chosen to file this appeal. Reason is that the appellant is disputing that the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 3,300/-. According to the appellant, the rent of the premises is only Rs. 2,200/- per month.2. It may be pointed out at th...

Metso Minerals (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyam Shankaranarayan Jv

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ558

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 49,91,483.16/- along with interest @24% per annum. The defendant is contesting the suit. It has filed the written statement in which one of the preliminary objections is that the defendant had already filed suit for recovery in Bangalore against M/s. Metso Minerals Inc., which is the supplier company. The said suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,09,98,880/- along with cost and interest which according to the defendant was filed prior in point of time and the subject matter of the two suits is substantially the same between the same parties. On this ground the defendant does not want the present suit of the plaintiff to proceed and, thereforee, instant application is filed under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of the proceedings. The plaintiff has opposed this application and filed the reply. Learned Counsel for both the parties made extensive submissions in support of their respective pleas. 2. In order to determine the controv...