Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri Rajnish Kataria and anr. Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(101)DRJ124

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Aggrieved with the order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the then learned District Judge, Delhi, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. By the impugned order the then learned District Judge has restrained the ADM (West) not to disburse the compensation amount in respect of the property bearing No. 42/2, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi till the disposal of the probate petition.2. To examine the contentions raised by the appellants in the appeal, it would be necessary to set out the brief facts of the present case as under:Mr. Mohinder Singh who is respondent herein has filed the Probate Petition before the learned District Judge so as to get the probate of unregistered Will dated 21.7.1977. In the said Probate Petition the respondent had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of interim injunction. In the Probate Petition the respondent has alleged that he was the beneficiary of the Will and when he visited t...

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]306ITR271(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 30th March, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in ITA No. 3622/Del/1995 relevant for the assessment year 1992-93.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we admit this appeal and while dispensing with the filing of paper book, we frame the following substantial question of law for consideration:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in differing with the view taken by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in respect of the same assessed for the assessment year 1985-86.3. The question that arose on the merits of the case before the Tribunal was whether on revaluation of the stock in trade of the assessed, the Assessing Officer was justified in making an addition of Rs. 6.01 crores.4. An identical issue had arisen in the case of the assessed, though in respect of a different amount for the assessment year 1985-86. In respect of that assessment year, the Assessing Office...

Vimal Kumar Behl Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ480

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Writ Petition prays for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention bearing F. No. 801/11/97 PIT NDPS dated 24.2.1997 (Annexure A hereto), issued by Shri R.K. Tewari, the Deputy Director General (Co-ordination), Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi the respondent No. 2 herein against the petitioner Vimal Kumar Behl under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act 1988 and direct that the petitioner be released from detention forthwith and be set at liberty.2. The impugned Order is dated 24.2.1997 in which the Deputy Director General (Coordination), Narcotics Control Bureau considered it necessary, with a view to preventing the Petitioner from engaging in the procurement, storage and abetting in the export from India of narcotic drugs, to detain the Petitioner and to keep him in custody in the Central Prison, Pune. The grounds for detention of the Petitioner were appen...

Ambassador Cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC78

H.R. Malhotra, J.1. This appeal ariscs out of impugned order dated 19.7,2005 whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant filed under Section 138, Negotiable instrument Act. was dismissed In default as he failed to appear on that date, The accused persons were present on that date,I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as also learned Counsel for the respondent Learned Counsel for the respondent states that appellant has not been able to prove that hit absence was not deliberate but accidental one. He states so on the strength that the Counsel had not placed on record the copy of the diary showing that he had to attend another case at Karkardooma Courts.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that great prejudice shall be caused to the complainant-appellant if his complaint goes undefended, particularly when the amount involved in this case is about Rs. 4,27,272/-, thereforee, in the interest of justice the appeal is allowed, resultin...

Mahender Singh Vs. High Court of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2008)BC619; [2009]151CompCas485(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. Against the petitioners in all these petitions the Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI', for short), which is a statutory body constituted under the SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has filed complaints under Section 24(1) and Section 27 of the Act. These complaints relate to the alleged offence committed by the petitioners, under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, prior to 29.10.2002. As per the said provisions prevalent at that time, the offences for which the petitioners are being prosecuted contained a maximum term of one year's imprisonment. The complaints filed are in the nature of summons cases and having regard to the aforesaid maximum imprisonment which could be given to the accused held guilty of the offence, these are triable by the Court of Magistrate, Thus, the complaints were filed before the Magistrate who had taken cognizance thereof,2. The provisions of the Act were amended with effect from 29.10.2002, These very offen...

Azmat Ali Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)SLJ42(Delhi)

Aruna Suresh, J.1. The present writ petition challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 14th September, 2001 in O.A. No. 214/2001 wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the application of the petitioner filed against the punishment of removal by an order dated 7th October, 1995, against the rejection of the Appellate Authority order dated 2nd January, 1996, and the Revisional Authority order dated 24th February, 1997.2. Briefly narrated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent No. 4 W.M. Shell Progress, RCF Kapurthala, on 3rd October, 1989. He was regularised on 16.4.1990 as Artisan Trainer while working as Painter Grade-Ill in Bogie Shop of RCF. The petitioner was served upon a charge-sheet dated 16th August, 1995 on 1st September, 1995 under Rule 9 of Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RSDA Rules') alleging his participati...

Asha Aggarwal (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(1)SLJ225(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. All the petitioners in these petitions constitute one homogeneous group and raise common grievance. They were working as General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) with the Director General, Central Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Their age of retirement was 60 years. In case of other three categories of doctors, namely, Teaching Specialists, Non-teaching Specialists and Public Health Specialists, the Government (respondents) herein decided to enhance the age of superannuation to 62 years vide notification dated 16.11.2006. Since same benefit of increase in age was not extended to GDMOs, the respondents felt that they were discriminated against, as according to them, they broadly fall in the same group in which other three categories of doctors belong to inasmuch as it is one service which is divided into four sub-cadres and, therefore, the impugned action of the respondents suffered from vice of inequality and, thus, violative o...

Cce Vs. Saboo Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the credit is required to be reversed in respect of inputs contained in the finished goods lying in stock on the date of the respondents opting for exemption.2. The learned DR on behalf of the revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal following the decision of larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Rajkot v. Ashok Iron & Steel FabricatorsTractors & Farm Equipments Ltd v. CCE Madurai reported in 2007(79) RLT 384 (CESTAT-Che) after considering the larger Bench decision held that input credit taken in respect of inputs in stock or contained in final product, on the date of opting for exemption, all credit is to be reversed.3. The learned Advocate submits that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which was inserted by Notification No. 10/2007 dated 1.3.2007 provides a manufacturer or producer of the final product shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to the cenvat credit, ...

Commissioner of Service Tax. Vs. G.E.C. Avery Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the agreement in question is in respect of transfer of Intellectual property service and is not for providing service as consulting engineer. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Board Circular F. No. B2/8/2004-TRU, dated 10-11-2004 and various decisions of the Tribunal.2. The contention of revenue is that the present agreement is in respect of the service of consulting engineer received by respondent.The revenue relied upon the terms of the agreement dated 18th March, 1999 in respect of technical assistance, the contention is that as per the agreement there were provisions for providing technical assistance service, therefore, the service under the agreement is the service as Consulting Engineer. The revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. v. CCE,...

Ashok Jaisswar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 114 of Customs Act 1962. Brief facts of the case are that, numerous shipping bills were filed for export of the goods with draw back claims. The draw back claims amounting to Rs. 40,55,368/- in the case of M/s Golden Exports and Rs. 41,28,290/- in the case of M/s Seven Seas Exports and Rs. 45,00,718/- in the case of M/s Sagar Trade Line were sanctioned. During investigation which was found that firm was non-existence that the value goods was mis-declared to claim the higher rate of draw back. The shipping bills were signed by the present appellant. The revenue is of the opinion that the present appellant abated the exporter in the exports of mis-declared goods and liable.2. The contention of appellant is that there is no evidence on record to show that appellant connived with the exporter to get higher rate of draw back or the appellant received some extra consideration for...