Delhi Court September 2007 Judgments

Shrinath Tourist Agency Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ50CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand of service tax and penalties were upheld.2. The contention of appellants is that they are not covered under the scope of service tax as tour operator. They are only booking agents of other tour operators. The appellants produced copies of the agent license issued by the Regional Transport officer, Udaipur in support of their contention. The contention is that appellants are only agents for booking tickets, therefore, they are not liable for service tax as tour operator. During the period in dispute, the service tax in respect of booking agent was not leviable. With effect from 10.9.2004, they are registered with the authorities as travel agents and paying service tax. The contention is that in these circumstances, the demand considering the applicant as tour operator, is not sustainable.3. The submission of revenue is that the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their cla...

Smt. Premvati and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas440(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J.1. This order shall dispose of the preliminary issue, whether the suit as framed is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sections 397 to 407 of the Companies Act? (OPD), framed on 14th November, 2002. 2. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and rendition of accounts contending inter-alia that Sh. Banwari Lal was the common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Plaintiff No. 1 is the grand daughter of Late Sh. Banwari Lal, daughter of Sh. Bal Kishan Das son of Sh. Banwari Lal. The plaintiff No. 2 is the son, plaintiff No. 3 is the widow and plaintiff No. 4 is the daughter of Sh. Gopal Kishan Das, son of late Sh. Bal Kishan Das. 3. According to the plaintiffs late Sh.Banwari Lal constituted and started his proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. Later on Sh.Bal Kishan Das who was the only son of Sh. Banwari Lal along with his son constituted six private limited companies and registere...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Televista Electronics P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)143; [2008]298ITR172(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), relevant to the Assessment Year 1979-80, the following question has been referred for our opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal'):Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') was correct in law in holding that no interest under Section 217 was chargeable in this case despite the fact that the assessed company did not file statement of income/estimate of income as required under Section 209-A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80?2. The assessed, which is engaged in the manufacturing of electronic goods such as television sets, video cassette recorders and the like, was assessed to a loss of Rs. 5,91,110 for the assessment year 1976-77. For the next two assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 the assessed filed returns showing loss of Rs. 2,28,100 and Rs. 9,828 respectively. For the assessment year 197...

Master Gaurav Sikri and anr. Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Sikri and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi40

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. A serious objection to the maintainability of the suit was taken by the leraned Counsel for the defendants. This was also noted in the order dated 15.12.2006 wherein it was pointed out to the Court that the suit has been filed by the grandchildren of late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri in the life time of their father. The matter was thereafter adjourned for arguments on this aspect. The same has been argued today by the counsel for the plaintiffs as well as by the counsel for the defendants. 2. The short point taken by the leraned Counsel for the defendants is that if all the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct, it would not disclose a cause of action and, thereforee, the plaint has to be rejected. He submitted that as per averments made in the plaint late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri was the owner of the suit properties detailed in paragraph 3 of the plaint. It is an admitted position between the parties that late Sh. Vilayati Ram Sikri passed away on 11.1...

ircon International Ltd. Vs. Budhraja Mining and Constructions Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR159(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') against two separate orders both dated 11.08.2003 in respect of two separate Awards dated 23.05.2002 passed by the sole arbitrator. By virtue of the said orders dated 11.08.2003 certain computational/typographical errors have been sought to be corrected in the respective Awards dated 23.05.2002. The issues raised in both these petitions are identical and, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are also somewhat identical. 2. The learned arbitrator had made Awards dated 23.05.2002 in both the cases. According to the respondent there were computational / typographical errors in the said Awards. thereforee, the respondent allegedly filed applications on 18.06.2002 seeking the correction of the said errors made in the said Awards. These applications for corrections were made under Section 3...

Rajiv Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(98)DRJ295

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This writ petition was disposed off by a consent order on 12th January, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CM No. 4904/2007 for recall of, inter alia, the order dated 12.1.2007 whereby the petition was disposed of and for a decision of the petition on its merits. Another application was also moved by the petitioners being CM No. 10009/07 for certain directions, which will be adverted to later in this judgment. We have heard arguments on the aforesaid two applications and thereafter proceeded to hear the arguments of the parties in the Writ Petition itself, since we were inclined to allow petitioner's application being CM No. 4904/2007 and recall the orders dated 4.1.2007 and 12.1.2007 whereby the petition was disposed of on consent terms and to hear and decide the matter on its merits. We shall deal with the aforesaid applications in greater detail as we go along with this judgment.2. The Petitioners challenge the order dated 28th June 1999 passed by the Central...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kapur (Huf)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)241

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Relevant for the asst. yr. 1980-81 the following questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act'):1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no 'transfer' of the asset?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no capital gain was assessable in the hands of the assessed?2. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.3. assessed is a Hindu undivided family ('HUF') which owned a part of the property situated at 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi ('property'). The property belonged to a larger HUF and after partition took place amongst the family members, the assessed HUF acquired one-fifth share in a five-eighth part of the property in terms of a decree dt. 27th March, 1968 passed by this Court. According to the assessed, the Karta of the assessed HUF, Mr. Ash...

Maneti Rawat Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-disclosure of pre-existing disease by the insured-late Shri Laxman Singh Rawat who died due to an accident, the complainant has through this complaint sought compensation of Rs. 14,40,000 in the following components: (i) Rs. 3,00,000 on account of basic sum assured of the policy. (ii) Rs. 3,00,000 on account of accident benefit as the death of the life assured has occurred in an accident. (iii) Rs. 90,000 on account of interest upto 2.8.1998 from the date of death of life assured @ 18% on Rs. 6 lacs i.e. w.e.f. 2.10.1997 to 2.8.1998. (iv) Rs. 7 lacs on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant. (v) Rs. 50,000 on account of litigation expenses and the conveyance etc. and other expenses incurred by the complainant. 2. Allegations of the complainant, in brief, are that late Shri Laxman Singh Rawat, the son of the complainant took 6 LIC policies for Rs. 3,00,000 bear...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Golden Rolls Pvt. Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT199TriDel

1. The Respondent filed these applications for rectification of mistake of Final Order Nos. 423-424, 2007-SM(BR) dated 19-1-2007 passed by this Tribunal.For the purpose of proper appreciation, the relevant portions of the said Final Order are reproduced below: 4. The issue involved is as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable on finalisation of provisional assessment made under Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short "Rules 1944"), refund of duty paid on 1986 to 1990, much before amendment of Rule 9B on 25-6-1999, (when Section 11B including unjust enrichment was made applicable to Rule 9B provisional assessment cases). The ld. Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Allied Photographies Inds. Ltd. , wherein, it was held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to provisional ...

B.M. Anand, Director, Inspection Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri B.M. Anand, Director, Inspection & Investigation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question order dated 24.5.2007 vide which he was placed under suspension, as also order dated 20.8.2007 vide which his suspension has been ordered to continue till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2007. Reading of order dated 24.5.2007 placing the applicant under suspension would show that a criminal case has been registered against the applicant by the CBI which is of possessing disproportionate assets commensurate to the known sources of income of the applicant. The applicant, it further appears, has been placed under suspension under provisions contained in rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Reading of order dated 20.8.2007 would show that the suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the revie...