Delhi Court January 2010 Judgments

Surender Kumar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT760

Aruna Suresh, J.1. Probate case No. 5/1989 has been instituted by Surender Kumar son of Shri Tehl Ram Tuteja (since deceased) seeking probate in respect of Will dated 29.01.1988. Probate Case No. 44/1990 has been filed by Smt. Sudesh Kumari Mehdiratta daughter of deceased Tehl Ram seeking probate of Will dated 30.5.1985. Both these Wills are purported to have been executed by Tehl Ram Tuteja during his lifetime. Both the cases were consolidated vide order dated 29.01.1991 passed in Probate Case No. 5/1989 with further directions that proceedings would be recorded in Probate Case No. 5/1989.2. In brief, the facts are that deceased Lala Tehl Ram Tuteja was the joint owner of house No. A-294, Derawal Nagar, Azadpur, Delhi with Surender Kumar (Petitioner) having equal share in the same. He expired on 8.03.1988 leaving behind three daughters, namely, Smt. Sita Rani, Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Sudesh Kumari. Sita Rani was married to one Thakkar Das, Raj Kumari was married to Jaman Lal Khurana ...

State Vs. Ranbir Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT427

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J..1. Custodial death is a manifestation of acts when protectors of law become perpetrators of crime.2. 'The police must obey the law while enforcing the law.' said Earl Warren. We are faced with a case where the allegation against the respondent is of causing death of a person in custody though the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent giving him the benefit of doubt.3. Dayal Singh, deceased, was picked up on 19.09.1986 at 5.30 A.M. from his residence at Govindpuri by SI Ranbir Singh in pursuance to registration of FIR No. 365/1986 under Section 380 of IPC at PS Sriniwaspuri for theft of a VCR, some cassettes and sarees etc from the house of Ms. Sumati Jain, r/o 3, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The complaint was made by Ms. Sudha Sunderam, sister of Sumati Jain. Smt. Sumati Jain in her statement did not cast doubt on any of her past or present servants. The deceased/Dayal Singh was an ex-employee who had worked as Chowkidar in the house of Smt. Sumati Jain and his ...

Cellular Operators Ass. O.i. and ors. Vs. Nivedita Sharma and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 166(2010)DLT558

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These three petitions are being disposed of by this common order inasmuch as they arise out of the order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. CC-09/2006. A complaint had been filed by the complainant (respondent No. 1 in these petitions) with regard to unsolicited commercial communications being received by her on her mobile phone. Taking note of the plight of the complainant, the State Commission observed that a similar problem is being faced by a large number of people who own mobile phones and that the unsolicited commercial communications, which include short message service (SMS) communications as well as calls are a growing menace. The petitioner in WP(C) 583/2007 is an association of cellular operators. It has taken the stand on behalf of all the cellular operators, which include Bharti Airtel along with other member cellular operators.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the directions / orders passed by the State...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saden Vikas India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR538(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. C. M. No. 198 of 20102. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands disposed of.I.T.A. No. 14 of 20103. The Revenue is aggrieved by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated November 14, 2008, passed in I. T. A. No. 4233/Del/2005 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on account of alleged cessation of liability.4. It appears that the assessee had received an order from Premier Automobiles Limited (PAL) for supply of components for Fiat Automobiles manufactured by the latter. PAL advanced a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the assessee towards capital cost to be incurred by the assessee for development/procurement of tools, jigs, dies, fixtures and moulds required for manufactur...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smcc Construction India (Formerly Mitsu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2010]320ITR534(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. CM No. 197 of 20102. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. This application stands 2 disposed of.I. T. A. No. 12 of 20103. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Income-tax Appellate 3 Tribunal's order dated December 23, 2008, passed in I. T. A. No. 806/Del/2007 in respect of the assessment year 2003-04. The grievance before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,16,64,463 made by the Assessing Officer by making a disallowance of expenses on the ground that the said expenses related to the year prior to the previous year relevant for the assessment year in question. In other words, the addition was made in respect of prior period expenses. The said expenses were in the nature of fees paid to a foreign entity for rendering technical services to the assessee. The said technical fee was payable from time to time. However, the same had not been shown as payable in the books of ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Lucknow Vs. M/S. Rosa Sugar Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan This appeal by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 179/CE/LKO/ 2007 dated 22.11.07 allowing remission of duty on goods lost in storage. 2. Learned Company Secretary appearing for the respondents submits that appeal against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in such matters relating to remission or loss do not lie before the Tribunal in view of proviso to section 35B (1) of the Central Excise Act. 3. Learned DR concurs with the same. 4. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable before the Tribunal....

M/S Aksh Optifibre Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the party against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 339(RKS) CE/JPR-I/2007 dated 26.11.2007. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.28,939/- along with interest in respect of goods cleared to another unit of the appellant company on the issue of incorrect adoption of valuation. However, he did not impose penalty under Section 11AC. On review and on filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Commissioner (Appeals) imposed penalty of Rs.28,939/- under Section 11AC. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that it was not a case of clandestine removal; it was a case of differential duty arising out of incorrect determination of value which was due to misunderstanding.; he also submits that whatever duty was paid by the appellants was available as credit to the recipient unit which is also that of the appellant. Therefore, there is no intention to evade duty, and therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is not ...

M/S Sara Services and Engineer Private Limited Vs. Cce, Meerut-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts leading to this appeal are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The Appellant, a private limited company, are engaged in manufacture and sale of oil field equipments and spares thereof chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading (SH) 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Notification No. 5/99-CE dated 28/2/99 (S. No. 275 of the table to the notification) prescribes a concessional rate of excise duty on goods falling under any chapter but specified in list 8 to the notification, when supplied to Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) or Oil India Ltd. (OIL), subject to condition that if the use of the goods is elsewhere than in the factory of manufacture, the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER, 1944) is followed. The ONGC, Mumbai wanted to procure BOP Test unit and chart recorder alongwith accessories from the Appellant and for this purpose, as per the provisions of Chapter X of CER, 1944, they obtained the required permission...

Ex Sepoy (Pank) Mahender Singh Versus Union of India Through the Secre ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. Challenge is against the order passed by the General Court Martial (GCM, for brevity) dated 12.2.1988, whereby the accusedpetitioner was found guilty of the charge punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and dismissed from service. The punishment was affirmed by the Chief of Army Staff. Relief has also been sought to reinstate the petitioner in service with all backwages and consequential benefits. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire case was fabricated to implicate the petitioner falsely in a conspiracy to allow a smuggler to cross the international border of the country. The GCM found him guilty based on no evidence. The testimony of a co-accused was accepted as evidence which is not acceptable under the law. The accused cannot appear as a witness in the same case, where he was jointly tried with the co-accused. His position in such a situation would not be tha...

Sapper/Survey Field Jobanjit Singh Versus Union of India Through the S ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the General Court Martial (GCM, for brevity), whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the Code) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to be dismissed from service. Simultaneously, the order dated 27.1.2002 passed by the Confirming Officer and the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by the Chief of Army Staff on the post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act are sought to be quashed. 2. On 29.7.2001, while on active service, the petitioner intentionally caused the death of L/Nk. Raj Kumar Sharma of 55 Engr. Regt (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). It is stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated and tried in the case and that the finding of guilt recorded for the offence under Section 69 of the Arms Act is contrary to the evidence. The finding of culpability of the petitioner arrived at by the GCM is mere...