Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Constable (Dvr) Rai Singh S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Constable (Driver) Rai Singh, the applicant herein, is before this Tribunal for the 4th time, seeking to set aside the order of punishment imposed upon him pursuant to a departmental enquiry under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, that was held in 1995. The applicant in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has called in question order dated 28.3.2005, Annexure A-1, whereby punishment of forfeiture of service for two years permanently was imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority as also the order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.8.2006, Annexure A-2, vide which while confirming the findings of the guilt of the applicant on the charges framed against him, punishment was reduced to that of forfeiture of one year of service temporarily.2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the application, would reveal that the applicant was appointed in Delhi Police as a Constable (Driver) on 18.4.1983....

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)299ITR175(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the taxpayer for the AY 2004-05 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) partially setting aside assessment under Section 263 of IT. Act made vide order dated 30 March, 2005 with directions to the Assessing Officer for the fresh determination of Arm's Length Price of international transaction with AEs in the light of his directions.2. The facts of the case are that the taxpayer is a multinational company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products as one of the leading concerns in India. It submitted its return disclosing income of Rs. 3,30,64,05,014 for Asstt.Year 2004-05 (F.A. 2003-04). The taxpayer admittedly carried international transactions worth Rs. 1435,03,46,825 to which provision of transfer pricing was attracted in the relevant year. This figure was disclosed in the audit report filed in Form 3CEB along with the Return.A copy of said report is available at page 1-14 of the paper book of the taxpayer ...

Smt. Mobina Begum Vs. Nawab Ali and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ672

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CRL.M.A.6991/20061. The petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.2.2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in terms whereof the accused have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). The State has not filed any appeal against the impugned order.2. There is a delay of 68 days in filing the revision petition. It is stated in the application for condensation of delay that after the petitioner had deposed in the matter, she did not participate any further and it is only when a legal notice dated 11.5.2006 was served on the petitioner on 29.5.2006 alleging malicious prosecution, did the petitioner come to know about the acquittal of the accused by the impugned order. The petitioner thereafter contacted her counsel and applied for certified copy of the judgment and other relevant documents on 29.6.2006 which were made available on 6.7.2006. It is during this period o...

Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Riaz Ahmed Khan and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT537; 2008(36)PTC219(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') seeking transfer of Suit No. 336/2003 (Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Riaz Ahmed Khan and Ors.) which is allegedly pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. As would be apparent from the facts of this case narrated below, the key question is whether there is any suit pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi It is obvious that if there is no pending suit, the question of transfer/withdrawal of the same to this court cannot arise.2. The facts are that the petitioner herein had instituted a suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark/trade name, copyrights, passing off, etc. before this court. The suit was numbered as CS(OS) 1934/2001 and was valued at Rs 5,00,600/-. The suit came up before the court for the first time on 17.09.2001 when this court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants...

Trinaini Associates Vs. Ms. Madhu Goyal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)BC583; 147(2008)DLT541

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Vide present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner M/s. Trinaini Associates has laid challenge to the order dated 19.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi.2. By and under the impugned order the learned Trial Court has dismissed an application under Order xxxvII Rule 3(5) CPC filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend a recovery suit filed by the respondent under Order xxxvII CPC.3. Facts necessary to dispose of the present petition are that the respondent Madhu Goyal who was the sole proprietor of M/s. Computer Graphics and Publishing (hereinafter referred to as the firm), a firm engaged in the business of advertisement filed a suit under Order xxxvII CPC against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,94,649/-. Suit was based upon 16 bills totaling Rs. 2,76,926/- raised by the firm between the period January 2000 to April 2000 and alleged to be acknowledged by the petitioner and a letter dated 26.6.2000 add...

S.M. Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ204(Del); 147(2008)DLT752; 2008(101)DRJ391

Gita Mittal, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th July, 2006 passed by the respondent whereby the request of the petitioner for revalidation of its enlistment as a Class 1 Contractor (Electrical) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure any work of appropriate nature and amount as required by the Enlistment Rules, 2001.2. The petitioner points out that by an order passed on 15th October, 1999 upon being satisfied with the petitioner's eligibility, he was enlisted as contractor (Electrical) in the Class I category of the respondent who was eligible to tender for CPWD works in such category of contracts in the entire Indian union. Such appointment was for a period of five years in terms of Rule 7 of the Enlistment Rules, 2001 which is applied by the respondent for such enlistment. It has been contended that the petitioner had submitted tenders for award of special contracts with the respondents and has been successf...

D.T.C. Vs. Roshan Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT665; 2008(3)SLJ527(Delhi)

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.CM No. 1023/2008For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.The application stands disposed of.LPA No. 34/2008, CM No. 1022/08(Delay) and CM 1021/20081. There is a delay of 187 days in filing the appeal. An application has also been filed along with the appeal, praying for condensation of the said delay. Since the learned Counsel for the appellant has put forth arguments on merits of the case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised only one issue that the learned Single Judge could not have passed an order for payment of compound interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension. We have considered the said submission in the light of the records placed before us. The contention raised is that the respondents have no right to claim interest on the arrears of pension, due to the delay in disbursement, as they had themselves ...

National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)447

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short as Tribunal') has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for opinion of this Court:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 272.94 lacs received by the assessed Corporation from the Government of India constituted the income of the assessed for the assessment year in question under the provisions of Section 41 of the IT Act, 1961?2. The brief facts of this case are that the assessed Corporation was formed by the Government of India with the main object of assisting and nurturing the small scale sector industries in the country. The main function of this Corporation is to provide finance to the small scale industrial units. The assessed Corporation is to import machinery from abroad on credit and sell such machinery on hire purchase basis to small scale entrepreneurs. An agreement was ente...

Cce Vs. Shri Girish Chandra Pathak

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(226)ELT142TriDel

1. Heard learned D.R. as none appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of notice.2. Revenue has filed this appeal against impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the confiscation of truck and imposition of penalty on the owner of truck. The only contention of the Revenue is that as per provisions of Customs Act any conveyance or animal used as transport in smuggling of the goods shall be liable for confiscation unless the owner of the same proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner or his agent.3. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) held that there is nothing on record to show that the owner of truck or the driver had any knowledge about the contraband nature of the goods. The admitted fact is that truck loaded with goods was found inside the factory premises.In the present appeal Revenue has not produced any evidence from which inference can be drawn that the owner or the driver of the truck had any knowledge...

The Financers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In terms of the impugned order the appellant is required to pre-deposit service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,69,852/- and equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. Further penalty of Rs. 1000/- has been imposed under Section 77 of the Act. The period of dispute is from July, 2003 to February, 2005.2. Learned advocate stated that the appellants are actually contract selling agents of City Bank. They collected the application forms from various customers and submit to Bank for the purpose of getting loans from the Bank.3. Revenue proceeded against the appellant on the ground that they were rendering business auxiliary service. Our attention was invited to the Tribunal's Final order Nos. 468-70/07 dated 29.10.07 wherein identical matter was examined by the Bench. In the said order the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for denovo decision in accordance with law. The learned Advocate pointed out that even assuming that the appellants purported services to the B...