Delhi Court April 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 6 of about 223 results (0.018 seconds)C.C.E., Jalandhar Vs. M/S Simran Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 372/CE/Appeal/2007 dated 23.11.2007 which upheld the order of the original authority dated 27.11.2006 which dropped the proceedings initiated for recovery of duty of Rs.2,99,419/-. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the officers visited the premises of the respondents on 24.9.03 and found that during the period from 1.4.03 to 23.9.03, copper ingots and copper bars totally weighing 453536.7 kgs. were received and the quantity sent for job work was 378243.100 kgs. and a quantity of 54500.6 kgs. were removed as such on payment of duty. The officers held that there was a difference of 20793 kgs. of copper ingots/copper bars as on 24.9.03. Shri Sham Gupta, partner of the respondents in his statement dated 13.9.04 explained the reason for the shortage as due to their cutting the ends of copper ingots/bars before sending to job workers. He also clarified that t...
Tag this Judgment!Jappreet K. Kitty Vs. Cheil Communications India Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.I.A. Nos. 12237/2009 & 12267/20091. The present order will dispose of two applications, i.e IA 12237/2009 and IA 12267/2009.2. The suit seeks declaration that a report dated 29-6-2006 is motivated and mala fide and further for a money decree for Rs. One crore, and also a decree for permanent injunction. The suit was filed on 28th November 2006. This Court felt, on the first date of hearing, that insufficient court fee was paid. The plaintiff therefore, stated, on 29th November, 2006, that deficiency in court fee to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- would be made good and that the balance amount would be paid 60 days thereafter.3. It is a matter of record that the Rs. 50,000/- (required to be deposited in court within 10 days) was in fact deposited in July, 2007. The balance was concededly not paid, in accordance with the directions, within the time stipulated, (i.e by 25th February, 2007) but in fact deposited on 25th August, 2009. In between during the proceedings, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports
Court: Delhi
V.K. Jain, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11.9.2009, in ITA No. 1818/Del/2009 pertaining to the A.Y. 2004-2005 whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), was dismissed.2. The respondent/assessee filed return showing income of Rs. 49,40,500/- for the A.Y.2004-2005. The return was picked up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued to the assessee. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of readymade garments and had declared gross profit @ 12.08% during the A.Y.2004-2005 as against gross profit of 12.37% declared by it for the A.Y. 2003-2004 and gross profit of 17.58% declared for the A.Y.2002-2003. The assessee claimed that the fall in gross profit ratio was due to reduction in margin, in order to increase sales. The assessee was asked to produce Books of Account and relevant registers. The Books of A...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Vs. Learned District and Sessions Judge and ors.
Court: Delhi
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an LDC in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and was posted as an Ahlmad in the Court of MM from April 2000 to June 2000. It is during this period of time that one file titled as State v. K.P. Santosh under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, 1973 was misplaced. This resulted in suspension of the petitioner on 29.6.2000 and an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner.2. A memorandum dated 30.1.2001 was issued by the learned District and Sessions Judge to the petitioner along with statement of charges framed against him. In terms of the statement of article of charges, the act of the petitioner in misplacing the file and failing to trace out the same (the file was subsequently traced out) was stated to amount to gross negligence, carelessness and lack of devotion to duty constituting the mis-conduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner denied the charges and thus an enquiry...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
ORDERSanjiv Khanna, J.Crl.M.A. No. 5337/20101. Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Crl.Rev.P. No. 185/20102. In the present case, there is no order in the income-tax proceedings giving a finding on merits in favour of the petitioner. By order dated 3rd January, 1995 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to go into the question of total quantum of addition, i.e., the valuation of shares which should not be less than Rs. 100/- per share. The said order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax dated 3rd January, 1995 cannot be construed as an order, which decides the controversy and the issue raised in the complaint on merits in favour of the petitioner. In the said order, the Commissioner of Income-Tax while remanding the case back has observed as under:Ground No. 2: The appellant has disputed the estimate of the sale price of each share of M/s Angora Wool Combers Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. 139/- as against...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Shyam Sunder and ors.
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. WP(C) 1993/1992 has been preferred by DTC with respect to the award dated 19th September, 1991 of the Labour Court holding the termination by the DTC of the services of the respondent workman to be illegal and unjustified and directing DTC to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages.2. The DTC appointed the respondent workman as a Retainer Crew Conductor with effect from 15th March, 1984 and he was put on probation for one year with effect from 15th September, 1984. It is the case of DTC that the respondent workman was negligent in discharging his duties; that the bus on which he was posted was involved in an accident at Shahdara Terminal and hit a person who fell down and received fatal head injuries. DTC thus terminated the services of the respondent workman on 21st March, 1985 under Regulation 9(a)(i) of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 after paying one month's notice pay including retrenchment compensa...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Mahajan, Contractor Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
A.K. Pathak, J.1. Both the above appeals are directed against the order dated 4th April, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') against the award dated 22nd May, 1992 published by Mr. M.S. Telang, sole Arbitrator, have been disposed of; claim Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 and counter claims 1 to 4 have been made a Rule of the Court whereas claim No. 6 has been set aside.2. In brief, relevant facts are that Mr. M.L. Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) was awarded a work for the construction of 926 janta category flats at Ghazipur by the DDA. As per the contract, the construction work was to commence on 12th August, 1982 and was to be completed within a period of one year i.e. by 11th August, 1983. The work could not be completed in time by the contractor; accordingly, Superintending Engineer, DDA levied compensation on the contractor in t...
Tag this Judgment!Sardar Patel Vidyalaya Vs. G.P. Srivastava
Court: Delhi
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The respondent was a caretaker appointed by the petitioner school. Because of the misdeeds of respondent, he was suspended from service on 10th May, 2006 in accordance with the rules under Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An inquiry was conducted as per rules and after completion of the inquiry and charges of delegation of duty being proved, the respondent was terminated from service under the Act and rules on 9th June, 2008.2. The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court claiming to be a workman and praying for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection against the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to hear the matter on the ground that the remedy available to the respondent was to approach Delhi School Tribunal under Delhi School Education Act. The Labour Court vide impugned order dismissed this objection observing that whether claimant was a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Anil Chuttani Vs. the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Court: Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the office order dated 5th November, 1996 of the respondent ONGC, deeming the petitioner to have resigned from the services of the respondent ONGC with effect from 25th November, 1995 and striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of respondent ONGC with effect from the said date, for the reason of unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 28th August, 1995. The petitioner, prior to instituting this petition, made a representation to the respondent ONGC but to no avail. Notice of this petition was issued on 29th April, 1999 and accepted by the counsel for the respondent ONGC who appeared on advance notice. Rule was issued on 24th March, 2000. The respondent ONGC in its counter affidavit, filed to the writ petition, has pleaded that the office order dated 5th November, 1996 (supra) impugned in this petition was issued in accordance with Regulation 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Regulations, 1995. The said R...
Tag this Judgment!Montreaux Resorts (P) Limited and anr. Vs. Vikram Bakshi and ors.
Court: Delhi
ORDERP.K. Bhasin, J.1. A Company by the name of Montreaux Resorts (P) Limited was incorporated sometime in the year 2005. Mrs. Sonia Khosla (petitioner No. 2 in these contempt petitions), was one of the two founder Directors. The other Director was one Mr. Vini Ahuja. At the time of incorporation of the said Company (which is petitioner No. 1 herein and hereinafter shall be referred to as 'MRL'). Mr. R.P. Khosla, father-in-law of Mrs. Sonia Khosla was having some land in village Mashobra in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He had also entered into agreements with landowners in that area for purchase of more land. Mr. Deepak Khosla, husband of Mrs. Sonia Khosla (petitioner No. 3 herein) had also entered into some transactions for purchase of land in that area. It was with the idea of utilising those tracts of lands for development of a tourist Resort, Studio Apartments and a Golf Course that MRL came to be formed by the Khosla family. However, since these projects required large scale inv...
Tag this Judgment!