Delhi Court August 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.
U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC140
1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29.7.2005 upholding the order of the adjudicating authority by which he had confirmed the demand of Rs. 55,476/- under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, and imposed penalty of the like amount, besides demanding interest.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufactured of sugar molasses and was availing modvat credit. According to the Revenue, it had wrongly availed cenvat credit on jointing gasket sheets, asbestos graphite lub packing, steel packing, welding electrodes and plain plates during the period from March 2003 to January 2004. According to the assessee, packing/jointing was used to tighten the joints of the air of the gas in the sugar mill plant for various lines of pipes, besides for jointing purposes in boilers, sulphur furnace etc. For electrodes, it was contended that they were used for repairing various machineries, which was needed due to wear and tear. The electrodes were also used for "h...
Bhai Sunder Dass Sardar Singh (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR159(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to us by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') for the Assessment Years 1978-79 and 1979-80:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed company was an 'Industrial Company' as defined in the Finance Act, 1978/Finance Act, 1979?2. The assessed is running a restaurant under the name and style of 'President Hotel'. The assessed is processing raw food and the cooked food is sold to its customers. On this basis the assessed claims that it is an industrial company as defined in the Finance Act, 1978/1979 and, thereforee, it is required to pay a lesser rate of tax.3. In one of the assessment years, the assessed did not raise this issue before the Assessing Officer. However, it was raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). For the other assessment year the assessed had raised this issue before the Assessi...
M.C.D. Vs. Naresh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ1053Del; 2008(1)SLJ541(Delhi)
Hima Kohli, J.1. The petitioner MCD has impugned the award dated 31st January, 2001 passed by the Labour Court in favor of the respondent workman holding inter alias that he is entitled to be reinstated to his job of a Chowkidar with continuity of service, full backwages and other consequential benefits.2. A brief narration of the facts is necessary. The respondent workman had joined the services of the petitioner MCD as a Chowkidar with effect from 16th November, 1988 as a daily wager/casual/muster roll worker. His services were terminated on 19th May, 1995 on the allegations of misconduct, without serving any charge sheet or conducting any domestic enquiry against him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the petitioner MCD, the respondent workman approached the Conciliation Officer who was unable to resolve the dispute between the parties resulting in a reference dated 25th October, 1996 forwarded by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court in the following terms:Whether servi...
Braham Parkash Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ96(Delhi)
Hima Kohli, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner workman has challenged an award dated 7th April, 2007 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 203/06 wherein the reference as to whether the services of the petitioner workman were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief and consequential benefits is he entitled to, has been answered against the petitioner workman by holding that the courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties as the petitioner workman was lastly posted with the respondent management at Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner workman filed a statement of claim stating inter alias that he was appointed as a Typist by the respondent management on 10th May, 1983 in the head office of the respondent management. Due to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India...
Bird Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Go Airlines (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR519(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the appointment of an arbitrator. According to the petitioner, the arbitration clause is contained in the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent on the other on 01.08.2005. The arbitration clause reads as under:This memorandum of understanding and the Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India.All disputes and differences which may arise between the parties with respect to the performance, interpretation or execution of this memorandum of understanding and the Agreement shall be referred to arbitration before a sole arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended. Such arbitration shall be conducted in the English language and the seat of such proceeding shall be at New Delhi....
Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. Vs. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: (2008)149PLR40
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The first application (IA 6388/2006) has been filed under Order 7 Rule 14, Order 16 Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') for production of additional documents and for filing an additional affidavit. The second application (IA 9770/2006) has been filed under Section 151 CPC for summoning a witness from the Indian Overseas Bank, defense Colony, New Delhi for the production of certain documents mentioned in the said application. Essentially, the question relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff.2. The suit is at the stage where the plaintiff has closed its evidence in affirmative. The plaintiff's witnesses have been cross-examined and now the defendant's witnesses have to be cross-examined. Both these applications were filed prior to the defendant's witnesses having filed their affidavits by way of evidence. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant submitted that these docu...
Bharat Nidhi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: [2008]306ITR230(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'):Whether on facts and circumstance of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in treating the return filed on 27.8.1976 as an invalid return on the ground that it had not been signed in accordance with the provisions of Section 140(c) of the Income Tax Act?2. The return of income filed by the assessed, a limited company, on 27th August, 1976, was signed by its Secretary.3. On 30th June, 1977 and 1st November, 1977, the Income Tax Officer ('ITO') issued notices under Section 143(1) of the Act but it was not pointed out to the assessed that in terms of Section 140(c) of the Act, the return ought to have been signed by its Managing Director or one of its Directors in the absence of the Managing Director. It is only during the course of the assessment proceedings that the ITO point...
Praveen Kumar Babbar and ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi Through Registra ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ342
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioners are the employees of the High Court of Delhi. They are working in various capacities such as Personal Assistant, Judicial Assistant, Junior Judicial Assistant, Translator, etc. All these posts are feeder cadre for promotion to the next higher grade, namely, Senior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as 'SJA'). They had earlier appeared in a written test, which was conducted in the year 2006. Though they were declared successful in the said test, Office Order dated 25.11.2006 was issued appointing 16 candidates to the post of SJA on the premise that there were 16 vacancies at the time when selection process was initiated. Further, 7 more posts fell vacant after the holding of the test and before orders for appointment of 16 candidates were issued. The High Court, thereforee, started fresh process of holding test to fill these 7 posts and fixed 8.7.2007 as the date of written examination for this purpose. The petitioners want to be appointed as SJ...
Suresh Khullar Vs. Sh. Vijay Kumar Khullar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Delhi1; 148(2008)DLT685; 2007(97)DRJ668
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The appellant is the second wife of the respondent. The respondent had put up an advertisement for marriage stating that he is a divorcee and extremely well-to-do and have a thriving business. He made the appellant believe that his salary is in four figures and that he held a diploma in Industrial and Marketing Management. It was under this impression that the appellant, who was survived by a widowed mother, married the respondent in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 14.10.1988. Within a few days of the marriage, the respondent threw the appellant out of the matrimonial home and filed a petition for divorce. The appellant also filed petition under Sections 18, 20 & 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for grant of separate residence and maintenance before the trial court being suit No. 3/96. 2. It was only during the course of the divorce proceedings that it was disclosed to the appellant that the responden...
Cit Vs. Bansal High Carbons (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Del)179
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31-1-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in respect of a batch of appeals filed by a group of assessed called the Bansal Group.2. Search and seizure operations under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were conducted on 11-9-2001 at various residential and business premises of a group of assessed, including the assessed before us, collectively called the Bansal Group. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the assessed under Section 158BC of the Act. The assessing officer made huge additions and these additions were, by and large, confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) (Commissioner (Appeals)). The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that is why the revenue is before us. Since the facts of all the cases are more or less similar, they were dealt with by the Tribunal by one order and we do the same.3. Two issues h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »