Delhi Court April 2008 Judgments

Cc Vs. Malwa Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3.10.2007 setting aside the assessment on the Bills of Entry.2. The respondent, M/s. Malwa Industries Ltd., is engaged in the business of textile and textile goods and in that connection imports certain goods for use as raw material in the manufacture of textile goods. It submitted Bills of Entry for clearance of Dystar Indigo VAT 40 percent SOL/Indigo Powder 90 percent Wettable falling under Tariff Heading 32041559. Additional duty (CVD) was charged on the assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Feeling aggrieved and contending that the goods were not liable for excise duty under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, the respondent preferred appeals. By the impugned order, upholding the contention of the respondent, assessment was modified deleting the additional duty (CVD), and the appeals were allowed.3. Section 3(1) of the Cust...

Cce Vs. Nepa Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard Jt. CDR as none appeared on behalf of respondent in spite of notice. Copy of notice also issued to the advocate of the respondent.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) held as under: 6. I find that exemption Notification No. 60/88 was available only upto 22.07.96 and that it was merged with Notification No. 8/96 dated 23.07.96 (Sr. No. 48.17) w.e.f. 23.07.96. Moreover, the definition of the term Newsprint during the relevant period was that "newsprint" means paper intended for the printing of Newspapers and not as quoted in the impugned order. The Adjudicating Authority has also confirmed the duty demanded on the grounds that exemption under Notification 60/88 dated 01.03.88 is not available to them and not due to the fact that the goods were to be classified under heading 48.02. This would mean that though the Show Cause Notices proposed to demand duty @ 20% Adv. (under heading 48.02) and have proposed to confirm the different...

Ambica Steels Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 20.3.2006.The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.11.1997 declaring its total income at nil under the normal provisions and at Rs. 7,56,291/- Under Section 115JA. Subsequently, on 15.7.2002, there was a search and seizure operation conducted by the department in the case of Shri N.C.Bansal and Others. On the basis of material found and seized during the course of the said operation, it was found that M/s Jain Brothers & Co.and other entities belonging to Shri N.C. Bansal were entry operators.It was revealed that the modus operandi followed by the said entry operators was to deposit the cash into bank accounts and issue cheques to the different parties from the said bank account after charging certain percentage of commission.2. It was also noticed that the assessee company was one of such parties who had re...

S.K. Contractor and Engineers Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR263(Delhi); 150(2008)DLT584; 2008(103)DRJ61

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. An objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was raised at the outset by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This order shall dispose of the said objection.2. The petition is directed against the award dated 20.9.2007 made by the sole arbitrator. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and, apart from this, Clause 14.10 of the Contract governing the parties clearly stipulated that:The parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mumbai for all purposes. The Arbitration shall be held at Mumbai and conducted in English language.On the strength of the aforesaid clause, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that even if it was to be assumed that part of the...

Vasu Tech Ltd. Vs. Ratna Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi122

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present applications have been filed on behalf of the defendant. While I.A. No. 3979/2007 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same is barred by law, I.A. No. 3681/2008 is filed under Section 151 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of certain subsequent events that have occurred during the pendency of the present suit, the suit has been rendered infructuous.2. Before proceeding to deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it is relevant to note certain facts of the case. The suit in hand has been instituted by the plaintiff praying inter alias for the following reliefs:a) Pass a decree of prohibitory injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the Defendants prohibiting Defendants, their agents/ representatives/ employees/ assignees, etc. from presenting the 16 (sixteen) cheques for Rs. 61,63,66,140/- (Rupees Sixty One Crores sixty three...

Vinod Kumar JaIn Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT385; 2008(103)DRJ107; 2008LC(DEL)586

Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. The petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kumar Jain is owner and occupant of property bearing No. 47/3, Jonapur, Vindhyachal Farms, Mehrauli which is energized by an electricity connection through licensee BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent-distcom, for short). 2. Petitioner claims that after installation of the electronic meter, he started receiving exorbitant bills w.e.f. 28th February, 2003. He relies upon consumption pattern from 30th December, 2001 onwards. As per the said consumption pattern, the maximum consumption was of 1930 units in February, 2002 but w.e.f. 28th February, 2003 the consumption for each billing circle was between 6596-10638 units. The petitioner, however, paid these bills. On 18th February, 2004 he received an electricity bill of Rs. 79,370/- on the basis of consumption of 19832 units between the period October, 2003 to February, 2004. Subsequently, he also received another bill showing consumption of 9517 units for the period...

Suresh JaIn Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2008Delhi127; 160(2009)DLT604

ORDERHima Kohli, J.1. By the present order this Court proposes to dispose of Arbitration Petition No. 489/2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying inter alia for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that are stated to have arisen between the parties, and OMP No. 641/2007, which is filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act for grant of interim reliefs.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with one Mr. R.K. Gupta entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (in short, 'JVA') dated 18-6-2005 for developing a commercial complex on a plot of land bearing No. C-5/567, Ward- 17, Jagdhari, situated at Jagadhari-Yamunagagar Road, Yamuna Nagar, Harayana measuring 3625 sq. yds. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the JVA. It is stated that the aforesaid JVA was executed in Delhi wherein the petitioner along with one Mr. R.K. Gupta were termed a...

Meenakshi Rawal Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(104)DRJ252

Aruna Suresh, J.1. This petition has been filed by petitioner Meenakshi Rawal challenging the order of summoning dated 24.4.2006 passed in criminal complaint under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as DMC Act) and seeking quashing of the said summoning order as well as the complaint No. 77/2006.2. Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (RBEF) had taken on rent premises No. B-1/623, second floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi, for purposes of running two institutes namely Amity Institute of Competitive Examinations (AICE) and Amity School of Distance Learning. It seems that on 18.5.2004 unior Engineer inspected the said premises and on the basis of his report MCD/respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 347/461 of the DMC Act on 30.7.2004 against one Ashok as owner/occupier for change of user of the property from residential to commercial. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused in the said c...

Goramal Hari Ram Limited Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 150(2008)DLT601; 2008(103)DRJ102; 2008LC(DEL)595

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This Writ Petition seeks the quashing of an order No. 8508 dated 10th October, 1991 whereby the respondent Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) imposed the penalty of misuse on the petitioner at 50% with regard to the meter K. No. 6140172-NL and K. No. 3265535-NP and a penalty of 10% for not maintaining a low power factor. The other prayers are for quashing the bills raised for the months January to June, 1992 issued by DESU to the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned two meters at the petitioners factory at 39, Rama Road, Najafgarh Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi-15 and for a direction to the respondent not to disconnect the electricity connection. 2. At the first hearing of this writ petition on 7th July, 1992 while directing notice to the respondent this Court observed that the bill paid by the petitioner would be subject to the further orders of this Court. Thereafter while Rule was issued on 30th October 1992, the following...

Ajay Bagaria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(103)DRJ324

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint titled Chief Enforcement Officer v. Ratan Exports and Industries and Ors. pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi insofar as it concerns the Petitioner.2. The complaint in question was filed by the Respondent No. 2 Enforcement Directorate through its Chief Enforcement Officer, Shri R.K. Rawal, Respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) read with Sections 49 (3) and 49(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) against the Company M/s. Ratan Exports and Industries Limited (REIL) and six others. The Petitioner here was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in the complaint.3. The complaint stated that by a letter dated 26th May, 1997 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had informed the Enforcement Directorate that export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 22.95 cror...