Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Col. M.R. Bhakshi Vs. Fintra Systems Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT1; 2008(106)DRJ166

Vipin Sanghi, J.C.P. No. 233/19971. On 17.01.2002 counsel for the respondent company made a statement that he has no objection to the company being wound up as prayed in the petition, and the official liquidator being appointed as provisional liquidator of the respondent company. Accordingly, the Court appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator of the respondent company to take charge of the assets and records of the respondent company. Mr. Luthra states that on 30.04.2004 the official liquidator sought to institute proceedings under Section 454 of the Companies Act against the ex-directors and also to take action under Section 468 and 477 of the Companies Act against them, for their failure to file a statement of affairs and failure to produce the records and Accounts Books and assets of the company. However, till date the said report filed on 30.04.2004 has not been taken up. On account of the non-filing of the statement of affairs by the ex-Directors of the comp...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Pratap Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(3)SLJ269(Delhi)

Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.1. This is an application filed by the respondent/workman Mr. Pratap Singh tinder Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The instant writ petition came to be filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation impugning the award dated 12.9.2003 in I.D. No. 391/1996 passed by the Labour Court-VII which held that the services of Mr. Pratap Singh had been terminated illegally by the petitioner. It was also directed that he shall be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. On an application moved by the petitioner an interim stay of the effect and operation of the impugned award was also granted by this Court on 28.11.2005.2. By this application, Mr. Pratap Singh has stated that he is unemployed and could not find gainful employment and that he has been maintaining himself from out of the payment made to him by the petitioner in part implementation of the impugned award. He states that he has been paid salary for the period from 1.6.1990 to 29.2.2004. ...

Shanti Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)14STT311

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby demand of Rs. 53,291/- was confirmed and penalty of equal amount has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act on the ground that the appellants are providing business auxiliary service.3. Contention of the appellants is that they are working as sub-agent of Shri Rajiv Sanghi who is service provider and has deposited the service tax on the total commission earned by him which includes the amount of commission received by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not required again to deposit amount of service tax which has already been paid by Shri Rajiv Sanghi. The appellants submitted that Shri Rajiv Sanghi has also given a certificate to his effect which was produced before the adjudicating authority. Learned Advocate submitted that this contention was raised before the Commissioner, but the Commissioner has confirmed the demand without considering and ...

Bhim Singh Vs. Amar Nath and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT34

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.12.1988 executed between the plaintiff and respondents No. 2 to 6 pertaining to 14 bigha and 5 biswa of land in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli. In said suit an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued in favor of the petitioner and against respondents No. 2 to 6 restraining them from transferring, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit land till the next date. The said interim order was extended from time to time and continues to ensure in favor of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the order prohibiting respondents No. 2 to 6 from selling the land in question they sold the land to respondent No. 1, Amar Nath, by a registered sale deed on 30.6.1997. According to Amar Nath when he applied to the Consolidation Authority for mutating the land in his name on 27.8.2003 he was informed of the Court injunction and a refusal by the revenue authorities to mutate the ...

Rana Steels Vs. Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ503; LC2008(3)62; 2008(37)PTC24(Del)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Two applications shall be disposed of by this order. The first application (IA.No. 9165/2007) has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') and the second application (IA.No. 10779/2007) has been filed by the defendant under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the ex parte interim injunction which was granted by this Court on 14.08.2007 on the first application, that is, is 9165/2007.The Ex Parte Order:2. A reading of the order dated 14.08.2007 reveals that the plaintiff claimed itself to be the proprietor of the registered trademark 'RANA' in respect of its products which include steel rolled products, C. T. D bars, angles, flats, rounds, channels and girders. The plaintiff had stated that it had used the said trademark since 1993 continuously and that it had applied for the registration of the trademark on 14.12.1994 which was fin...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mitsubishi Corporation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)85CTR(Del)218; [2008]306ITR260(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 5059, 5060 and 5061/Del/04 relevant for the financial years 1995-96 to 1997-98.2. The assessed is a non-resident company incorporated in Japan. It has a liaison office in Delhi which employs local staff as well as expatriate employees deputed from the parent company in Japan. In so far as the local staff is concerned, the assessed deducts tax at source in respect of payment of salaries paid to them and there is no dispute in this regard. In so far as expatriate employees are concerned, they receive salary both in India as well as in Japan. In respect of the salary paid in India, the assessed deducts tax at source. There was some dispute with regard to deduction of tax on the salaries paid and benefits given to the expatriate employees in Japan and also the method of calculation. This has also been resolved and we are not directly concerne...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madhsy Films Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)145; [2008]301ITR69(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J. 1. The following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in quashing the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not served upon the assessed within the prescribed period?2. The facts in brief are that assessed filed his return on 31st October, 2001 declaring loss of Rs. 8,37,355/-. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 23rd October, 2002 and thereafter on 18th December, 2002 fixing the case for hearing on 29th October, 2002 and 24th December, 2002. None attended in response to these notices. Accordingly, Assessing Officer again issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act on 29th January, 2003 fixing the case on 7th February, 2003. This notice was also not complied with. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer framed assessment under Section 144 of the Act and disallowed the cl...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cargo Linkers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Del)695; [2009]179TAXMAN151(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 9th March, 2007 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'H' in ITA Nos. 2793, 2794, 2795 and 2796/Del/2006 relevant for the financial yrs. 2000-01 to 2003-04.2. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of clearing and forwarding agents (C&F; agents) and booking cargo for transportation abroad for various airlines operating in India.The assessee collects freight charges from the exporters who intend to send the goods through a particular airline and pays the amount to the airline or its General Sales Agents and for the services rendered, the assessee charges commission from the airlines.According to the AO, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source on the payments made to the airlines.3. The assessee disputed this and after an assessment order was passed, it preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein it was submitted that its job is mainly to transport goods belonging to exporters and it receives a commission from ...

Rkbk Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The application for stay which was rejected ex-parte, due to default by the applicant is restored.3. The applicant is DOLG operator on the basis of agreement entered into between them and IOC and rendering services which is being leviable to service tax as clearing and forwarding service. They are not disputing that they are rendering services as clearing and forwarding agency but are contesting the value adopted. As per the agreement, for the services rendered by the applicant, a consolidated amount of Rs. 760/- per KL/MT is being paid by IOC. The applicant during the relevant period received about Rs. 94 lacs as service charges pursuant to the said agreement and claims about Rs. 78 lacs, as relatable to activities which are not covered by the services as clearing and forwarding agent. In support of the same they produced a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Commissioner in his order in revision has given his findings that the Chartered Accountant certificate is not supported b...

Dr. (Mrs.) Ila Sharma W/O Dr. M.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This O.A. has been filed by 4 applicants who have challenged order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the respondents pursuant to directions given by the order dated 24.5.2006 in O.A. No. 2046/2004 (page 70 at 76).They have also sought direction to the respondents to grant them enhanced wages with effect from 1.1.1996.2. It is stated by the applicants that they had initially filed O.A.No. 2635/1999 as respondents had taken the decision to pay them Rs. 5,000/- only per month as consolidated salary with effect from 9.7.1998 vide judgment dated 12.12.2001, the said O.A. was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to consider enhancement of remuneration of the applicants keeping in mind the principle of equal pay for equal work (page 24 at 28). Being aggrieved respondents filed writ petition but the same was dismissed on 21.1.2003 (page 30 at 34). Pursuant to the above directions, respondents issued order dated 23.7.2003 (page 35) whereby the remuneration of the part-time medical offi...