Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sara International Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)491

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') against the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA T.D.S. No. 212/Del/2003 for the assessment year 2001-02 vide which the appeal filed by the assessed was allowed.2. Brief facts of this case are that the assessed filed TDS return on Form No. 26-C and the same was selected for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the proceedings, it was seen as per the details and copies of Ledger Account that the assessed had shown expenses of Rs. 87,27,705/- as commission under the head 'Salary Expenses'. Out of these expenses, a sum of Rs. 62,60,705/- was paid to M/s. PEC Ltd, Rs. 1,64,000/- to M/s. Bhura Export Ltd. and Rs. 23,03,000/- to M/s. Ayusa International. The assessed had submitted documents as far as M/s. Bhura Export Ltd. and M/s. Ayusa International were concerned but no agency agreem...

N.D. Qureshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ547

Manmohan, J.1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the petitioner can repeatedly file fresh petitions/proceedings claiming the same relief, despite the earlier proceedings having attained finality. 2. Briefly stated the material facts for this case, as apparent from the chart incorporated in the Respondents' counter affidavit, are that in the year 1988, the petitioner had filed a petition being OA No. 574/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By way of that OA, the petitioner had sought pay fixation in the selection post of PA to Director General (DG), further promotion to the post of Personal Secretary (PS) to DG, subsequent promotion to the post of Regional Director and upgradiation of the existing post of PS to DG to the corresponding post of PS in the CSSS hierarchy. The said petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on 23rd April, 1999. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of said OA, the petitioner filed a civ...

Ravi Gupta Vs. R.C. Tiwari

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC114

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The point for consideration in these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') can be filed by a complainant through a power of attorney (POA).2. The petitioner is the accused in Complaint Case Nos. 460/1 of 2005 titled R.C. Tiwari v. Ravi Gupta 461/1 of 2005 titled Tulshan International v. Ravi Gupta 622/1 of 2005 titled Sarla Tulshan v. Ravi Gupta 462/1 of 2005 titled Kanishka Enterprises Limited v. Ravi Gupta and 621/1 of 2005 titled J.M. Bhasin v. Ravi Gupta pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Delhi. The petitioner has been summoned in these complaints for the offence under Section 138, NI Act.3. The allegations in the complaints are more or less similar. It is stated that cheques for various sums of moneys drawn by the accused in favor of the complainant when presented to the bank for payment were returned d...

Cst Vs. Cani Merchandising Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)14STT319

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby rebate in respect of claim in respect of export of service under Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 was allowed.3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are registered with the Service Tax authorities as provider of business auxiliary services.The respondents filed a rebate claim in respect of service tax paid on the ground that the service was delivered outside India, therefore, service is to be treated as export of service. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the respondents are liable for service tax as service provider, however, they are entitled for rebate under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005.4. Case of the Revenue is that the respondents are situated in India and they are booking orders on behalf of the foreign supplier for supply of goods in India. The Revenue relied upon the terms and conditions of agreement entered b...

Smt. Meena Kumari D/O Prem Chand Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throug ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Meena Kumari, a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Drawing, belonging to reserved category of Scheduled Caste, the applicant herein, through present Application filed by her under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, makes a serious complaint of her being overlooked by her junior in the matter of promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) Drawing vide order dated 13.4.2005. She is also aggrieved of the order dated 19.7.2006 vide which her representation seeking promotion on the post of PGT (Drawing) from the date her junior was promoted, was rejected. The facts which are not in dispute, culled out from the pleadings of the parties reveal that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Drawing) as a Scheduled Caste candidate on 31.7.1997 and was confirmed on the said post on 31.7.1999. It is her case that she has an unblemished service record. Before her appointment on the post aforesaid, she had obtained Master's Degree in Fine Arts Sculpture in 1997, which fact is ...

Nisha Somaia Vs. Outlook Publishing (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT734; 2008(103)DRJ331

Hima Kohli, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint.2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed the present suit against the defendants claiming damages to the tune of Rs. One Crore on account of defamation. Notice was issued in the suit on 17.11.2006. During the pendency of the suit, a previous application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant, which was however dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.2.2007, with liberty granted to the plaintiff/applicant to file an appropriate application in accordance with law. In the meantime, the defendants filed their written statement on 8.3.2007. Thereafter the present application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff/applicant on 28.3.2007.3. By way of amendment, the plaintiff/ applicant wishes to amend the cause title of the suit from 'A su...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maimum Nisha and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1219

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.CM No. 4440/20081. There is a 93 days delay in filing the appeal. Vide CM No. 4440/2008 delay in filing the appeal is prayed to be condoned. I am considering prima facie the merits of the appeal while considering condensation of delay for the reason law is that if a claim is otherwise meritorious it should not be thrown out on account of limitation. I am also considering the cause shown for delay to be condoned. 2. Law pertaining to condensation of delay as it has grown in this country has inter mingled with prima facie case to be considered while considering the sufficiency of the cause shown for delay to be condoned. 3. Mohd. Aarif, held to be a bona fide passenger in a train, a finding not challenged in the instant appeal, had boarded a train to undertake journey from Sarai Rohilla Railway Station to Barauni Junction. The journey was undertaken by the young boy on 6.4.2005. 4. The next date i.e. on 7.4.2005 the train reached Dalsinghsarai Station. He fell off th...

Smt. Parveen @ Parro Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ950

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. None appears for the respondent in spite of service. Proceeded against ex-parte.2. The appellant is the mother of an unfortunate young boy named Salim. It is not in dispute that Salim received grievous injuries on 10.3.2003 and as a result of the injuries he died. It is also not in dispute that the injuries were a result of a fall from the train.3. As per the decision of the Railway Claims Tribunal it has been held that Salim had a monthly season ticket entitling him to travel by rail from Shahdara to Ghaziabad and vice versa and hence was a bona-fide passenger. Said finding has attained finality. On the issue whether the death was attributable to an untoward incident the Railway Claims Tribunal has held against the appellant. Reason for so holding is the charge sheet presented before the Criminal Court by the police and the record of investigation.4. Opinion arrived at by Railway Claims Tribunal is that the record of police investigation shows that the deceased...

Central Pollution Control Board Vs. Modern Decorators and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT323

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By way of the instant appeal exception is taken to an order dated 19.9.2001 dismissing objections to an award passed by the learned arbitrator being the award dated 20.5.1997. The impugned order is a short and cryptic order. I reproduce the same in its entirety:Pr. Counsels for the parties. Heard the arguments addressed on behalf of counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.Earlier the award passed by the Ld.Arbitrator was set aside by the order of my Ld.Predecessor vide order dt.18/10/96 and award was illegible 18/10/96 Under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for giving reasons for the award within 4 months. Arbitrator sought extension in time for giving award after giving reasons for the award within four months.Counsel for the objector respondent has raised the objections that the reason given by the arbitrator are not sufficient reasons. However, counsel for the claimant has filed 2000 VII AD (Delhi) 545 judgment of Hon'ble High Court ...

Om Prakash Vs. the Ministry of Indian Railway Through Its General Mana ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT599; 2008(102)DRJ462; 2009(1)SLJ216(Delhi)

Anil Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has claimed the family pension from 25th December, 2000 after the death of his father who was a Railways employee during the lifetime of the petitioner on the ground that he is disabled and unable to earn his livelihood.2. The brief relevant facts for adjudication of the present petition are that the father of the petitioner was working as a fitter (MCM) in the Central Railways. The petitioner's father retired on 30th June, 1987 and his pay at the time of retiring from service was Rs. 1800/-. The father of the petitioner had served from 2nd May, 1949 uptil 30th June, 1987.3. The petitioner contended that his father was getting pension from Central Railways after his retirement on 30th June, 1987 till 25th December, 2000 when the father of the petitioner expired. The petitioner has produced a copy of the pension book and a copy of the death certificate of his father.4. It is asserted by the petitioner that he is 55% physically handicapped and he is fully ...