Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Ex No. 14496920w (Gd), Son of Kulwant Singh Versus Union of India Thro ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. Both these cases arise from identical set of circumstances/ offences and the same judgment given by GCM involving identical questions of law. Even during the GCM, both the accused were tried jointly. Counsel on both sides prayed that the cases be clubbed together, which was granted on 18.11.2009. Hence this common judgment. 2. Both the petitioners seek quashing of the order of GCM dated 11.11.1992 held at 22 Field Regiment sentencing the petitioners to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. They also request quashing the pre-confirmation order under Section 164(1) and the post confirmation order under Section 164(2) and that they be reinstated in service with continuity of service with all attendant salary and benefits. 3. It would be appropriate to briefly enumerate the facts of the case before getting to the contentions of both parties. Both the petitioners had a good record of service before February 1992. Consequent to one months out-station duty in Janua...

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Chem-expo (India) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT440

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the Award dated 19th October 2002 whereby the learned Arbitrator-cum-Deputy General Manager (IT-2), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ('MTNL') allowed the claims made by the Respondent M/s. Chem Expo (India) Limited.2. The background fact to the above Award is that in June 1988 the Respondent was allotted telephone No. 3985035 at its premises at 8-C/2, Rajpur Road, Delhi. According to the Respondent it has been paying the telephone bills regularly. However, the said telephone was disconnected on 15th March 2001. The Respondent had been issued a letter by MTNL on 28th February 2001 stating that one Shri V.K. Gupta, a subscriber of telephone No. 3930378, had defaulted in the payment of dues against the said telephone to the tune of Rs. 67,140/-. Further, one Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, subscriber of telephone No. 2927390, had defaulted in paying the dues against the said telephone to the tune of Rs. 2,00,540/-. The case of the MTNL is...

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Iii Vs. Smc Credit Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)228CTR(Del)353; [2010]321ITR194(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 1133/Del/06 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99, the issue relates to the loss of Rs 18,06,620/- claimed by the respondent / assessee as a trading loss on account of transactions in shares. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the shares in respect of which the loss is claimed were in the nature of investment and, therefore, the loss incurred in respect thereof would be capital loss and not a business / trading loss.2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, found as a fact that the shares in question were held as stock-in-trade. The learned Counsel for the revenue drew our attention to an order dated 12.10.2004, whereby the Appellate Tribunal, in respect of this very assessment year, had, in the first round, set aside the order dated 09.04.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Income...

Shri Prem Sagar Sawhney and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT207

V.K. Jain, J.1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 211/99 lodged by respondent No. 2 at Police Station Keshavpuram under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC. Quashing of FIR has been sought on the grounds that (i) the husband of the complainant, who was the main accused, has since expired and (ii) the complainant has already stated before this Court that she has no grievance against other family members.2. Respondent No. 2, who is present in the Court, states that considering the conduct of the petitioners, she is not in a position to enter into a settlement with them.3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the husband of the complainant, Shri Rajiv Sawhney, her mother-in-law Smt. Prem Sawhney, her brother-in-law Shri Rajiv Sawhney, her sister-in-law Smt. Poonam Sawhney, her father-in-law Shri Prem Sagar Sawhney and her brother-in-law Shri Rajesh Sawhney, had been treating her with physical and mental cruelty so as to compel her to commit suicide and to cause injury and danger to he...

Shri Meer Singh Vs. Shri Amar Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT696

Aruna Suresh, J.IA No. 9718/2006 and 12698/2006 (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 831/2006 1. Vide this order I shall dispose of two applications one filed by Naresh Kumar, son of the defendant and other filed by Smt. Raj Rani, wife of Shri Jai Kishan, deceased son of the defendant seeking impleadment as defendants in this case. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of these two applications are that the property in suit i.e. Khasra No. 8/1, 8/2, 311, 309, 321, 322, 323, portion of House No. VI, measuring 42 sq.yds. in length and 11 yards in width on the ground floor, two kothas and two bhukharies, half portion of property No. 168 (measuring 3 biswas), Khasra No. 7/1, 7/2, 247/2, 248/275 and two kothies of Poli a House No. 6 and other portion of Plot No. 166 measuring 3 biswas towards West, Khasra No. 276, 277 and a Kotha on first floor towards West side and Khasra No. 278 and one Kotha on first floor of House No. VI towards East side, etc. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') ...

M/S Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Cce, Raipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Oral Order Per Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar: Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants under their submissions dated 16.09.2008 has informed the Tribunal that the Tribunal may decide the matters on the basis of the factual position as revealed from the records and it is not possible for the appellants to arrange personal appearance at the time of hearing of the matter. The matters were accordingly taken up for hearing and I have heard learned DR and perused the records with the assistance of the learned DR. 3. As far as Appeal No. 4023/06 is concerned, the same arises from the order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 23.06.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. By order dated 23.06.2006, the Assistant Commissioner had held that the appellants were liable t...

C.C.E., Chandigarh Vs. Spark Steel Sales and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: All these appeals by the Department arise out of a common order in appeal No. 370-398/ CE/CHD/07 dated 12.092007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh. 2.1. Heard the learned SDR for the Department. Heard the learned Advocate Shri Vikrant Kackria , who represented for Punjab Steel Forging and Agro Industries, Krishna Alloys (P) Ltd., Rajeev Alloys Ltd., K.L. Alloys Ltd., Nabha Steels Ltd. and Pushpanjali Steel Alloys Ltd. Heard the learned Advocate Shri Saurabh Kapoor who represented for Spark Steel Sales, Shiv Shankar Iron and Steel Trading Co., Rajeev Alloys Ltd. Also heard the Company Secretary Shri Atul Gupta and Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate who represented for Twenty First Century Steels Ltd. There is a request by the learned Advocate Shri Gaurav Aggarwal seeking adjournment of some of the appeals listed today in respect of A.R.Castings (P) Ltd., L.R. Alloys (P) Ltd., Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd., Spark Steel Sales, Bassi Alloys (P) Ltd., Jagat Metals (P) L...

R.C. Sabharwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT362

V.K. Jain, J.1. These petitions involves a common questions of law as to (i) whether an order directing framing of charge or framing charge, in a case attracting the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order and (ii) whether such an order can be challenged by way of (a) Revision Petition or (b) petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or (c) petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.2. Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides as under:(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.3. In 'Dharambir Khattar and Ors. v. CBI' 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 657, four criminal revision petitions directed against the Order on Charge, passed by the learned Special Judge under Section 120B of the IPC, read with various provisions of Prevention of Corru...

Pil Mumbai (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT755

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.1. The Petitioner PIL Mumbai (India) Ltd. acts as agent for various international lines and facilitates import and export of goods in containers in the course of international trade. The Petitioner states that it ensures that the containers of various shipping lines, of which it acts as agent, are shipped to the destination shown in the bill of lading. After delivery of the consignment the empty containers, for the import of which the Petitioner executes a bond in favour of the local customs authorities, are required to be re-exported by it within a reasonable time. 2. The Petitioner states that it has nothing to do with the liabilities attaching to the actual import or export of the consignments carried in the containers. Those obligations are of the respective consignors and consignees, as the case may be, and are governed by the contract entered into between those parties. 3. As far as the present case is concerned, two containers (PCU 3686070/20 and TTNU 38681...

Glaxo Smithkilne Consumer Healthcare Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Delhi Iii, Gurga ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 497/KKG/RTK/2007 dated 12.12.2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1. The relevant facts are that the appellant , a manufacturer of Horlicks transferred the Horlicks in bulk condition on payment of duty to various packing stations of the appellant for captive consumption. At the time of clearance of the bulk Horlicks, they were paying duty on the basis of provisional assessment based on cost construction method. The packing stations repacked them in retail packs and duty was admittedly paid on value arrived at under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The packing stations of the appellant were admittedly eligible for credit of duty paid on the bulk Horlicks. 3.2. During the year 2005, the assessment of the bulk Horlicks so cleared adopting provisional price was finalised on 7.6.06, on the basis of CAS-4 submitted by the appellant, by the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority and before finalisation, it i...