Delhi Court July 2010 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2010 Page 13 of about 331 results (0.020 seconds)Indian Railways Catering and Corporation Ltd Vs Govt of Nct of Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YesORDR.1. By this common order, we will dispose of all the writ petitions referred above, which involve a common question of law.2. The petitioner is a Government company, providing services, including catering on board the trains run by Indian Railways, under identical contracts between the petitioner- company and Indian Railways. The petitioner has also sub- leased the contract in respect of some trains to various contractors. The consideration for these services is included in the fare charged by Indian Railways from the passengers and the petitioner-company is paid, by Indian Railways, for what it terms as the services, including catering provided by it to the passengers. The petitioner had in the past been paying VAT, in respect of the services on board the trains, including providing of food and beverages a...
Tag this Judgment!Ms.Veena Vs Archeological Survey of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of order dated 3.6.2006 passed by District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner for transfer of the suit pending before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi to any other Court, was dismissed.2. The allegations made in Transfer Petition are that since the initiation of the suit before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, the conduct of learned Judge is such that petitioner has lost confidence to get justice from the said Court, on the grounds that upon initiation of the suit on 17.3.2010, the Court, did not consider the urgency of the matter and listed the same for 28.4.2010.3. Secondly, on 19.3.2010, the Court out rightly dismissed the prepone...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Shivani Textiles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "Act, 1961") challenging the order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short "ITAT") in ITA No. 3573/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001-2002.2. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in dismissing the Revenue's appeal whereby penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 11,85,500/- levied by the assessing officer had been deleted. She contended that the assessee's claim with regard to bad debts relating to investment in shares, not being the business of assessee, cannot be held to be bona fide. She relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textiles Processors, (2008) 13,...
Tag this Judgment!Sivalingam Nadesan Vs State
Court: Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?ORDER.(O R A L)1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR No.11/2010 lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC with PS Sector 23, Dwarka.2. It is stated in the petition that in the year 2001, the petitioner had joined the complainant company as a Technical Director. However, in July 2001, the petitioner sent his resignation to the respondent No.2 company and being a citizen of Malaysia, left for Malaysia on the same date after surrendering his employment Visa to the immigration authorities at IGI Airport. Thereafter, on an apprehension that some persons extended threats to the college where his son was studying in Delhi, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner, Delhi Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Madhu Bala Vs Sh. Prem Bahadur Saxena
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1.Present petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Control Act, 1958 (for short as 'Act') has been filed on behalf of petitioner/tenant against order dated 13.5.2010 passed by Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner /tenant seeking leave to contest was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent/landlord.2. The brief facts are that respondent is landlord/sole owner of the property bearing No. A-5A/219, Janakpuri, Delhi, which is a double storeyed house. Ground floor is having one room, kitchen, toilet and bathroom. Similar accommodation is available on the first floor. The entire ground floor has been let out to the petitioner. Respondent is living in rented accommodation at F-48, Karampura, Delhi, which is owned by Sh. Girija Singh. Petitioner got re...
Tag this Judgment!Mst. Akhtari Khatoon (Since ... ) Vs Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Through Lrs. ...
Court: Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YesORDER.1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.8.1980 passed by the court of the Additional District Judge confirming the order of the Sub-Judge 1st Class dated 4.4.1978 whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent stood decreed.2. The plaintiff/respondent had filed suit no.456/1973 against the defendant/appellant for possession of an area measuring 11'. 6"x 4'.9" forming part of a room and another area measuring 11'.0"x 2'.3" of the open space in house no.8135 (part) situated in Mohalla Chimney Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. It was alleged that the aforenoted area situated on the first floor and the passage to which is from the stairs of the adjoining house i.e. house no.8136 had illegally and wrongfully been usurped by the defendant by encroaching upon the aforesta...
Tag this Judgment!Ex-mt.Dvr Ravinder Singh Vs. Uoi and ors
Court: Delhi
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was appointed as a Driver (MT) under GREF on 23.3.1993 and claims, as pleaded in para 4 of the writ petition, that he completed his probation successfully. He avers in the same paragraph that during his probation he was not ever communicated 'any adversity of any kind' during his service period; which expression we understand to mean that the petitioner was never communicated any adverse comment pertaining to his working.3. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner avers that no order extending the provisional period of the petitioner was issued, which expression we understand to mean as conveying that at the end of 3 years period of probation, the petitioner was deemed to be confirmed.4. Grievance raised is to the order dated 15.2.1997 terminating petitioner's service.5. Petitioner states that since he had become a permanent employee his service could not be terminated without any inquiry. Petitioner claims that the order date...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. (Preventive), New Delhi and Another Vs. Shri Surjeet Singh and Ot ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: 1.1 Appeal No.C/377/09 is by Shri Jagdish Malik which is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.CC(A)CUS/Prev/89/09 dated 23.4.09 upholding the confiscation of the vehicle purchased by him from one Shri Balwinder Singh and imposing redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs. 1.2 Appeals No.C/490, C/491/09 and C/492/09 are by the Department against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the order of the original authority imposing penalties on the respondents were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). 1.3 As all these appeals arise out of the same order in original involving common facts and law, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard the learned SDR on behalf of the Department in Appeals No.C/490/09, C/491/09 and C/492/09. Heard the learned Advocate on behalf of Shri Jagdish Malik appellant in Appeal No.C/377/09 and respondent in Appeal No.C/492/09. None appeared for the other respondents. 3.1 The relevant facts, in ...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. M/S Hi-tech Medical Pvt. Ltd.
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. 34-CE/ALLD/2008 dated 28.2.2008, by which the prayer of the Department for enhancement of penalty from Rs.10,000/- to an amount equal to the duty involved under Section 11AC was rejected. 2. Heard the learned SDR who reiterates the grounds of appeal. 3. When the officers visited the premises of the respondent on 24.1.2006, they found some quantities of final products in excess of the recorded stock; they also found shortage of inputs on which cenvat credit was taken. The original authority inter alia confirmed the demand of Rs.11,097/-relating to shortage of finished goods which were provisionally released; he also ordered recovery of cenvat credit of Rs.30,456/-. He imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent for complicity in the offence under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not ag...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Delhi Iii, Gurgaon Vs. M/S Samyak Metals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Per M. Veeraiyan: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 60/KKG/GGN/2008 dated 28.2.2008. Cross-Objection No.305/2008 is connected to this appeal. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned DR. 3. The respondents are manufacturer of aluminium alloy ingots and were availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. They received aluminium sheets from M/s Alcon Foils Pvt. Ltd. Rai (Sonepat) falling within the jurisdiction of Rohtak Commissionerate. Assistant Commissioner in-charge of the respondent’s unit issued a show cause notice alleging that the supplying unit need not have paid duty as the activities undertaken by the supplying unit did not amount to manufacture and consequently, no credit was available to the respondent. The original authority, in pursuance of the show cause notice, disallowed the credit and demanded Rs.4,92,485/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) has set asi...
Tag this Judgment!