Delhi Court July 2012 Judgments

Anil Rai Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 27th June, 2008 directing framing of charge and the order dated 15th July, 2008 framing charge against the Petitioner for offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420/471 IPC and the substantive offences punishable under Section 420/471 IPC in case titled “CBI Vs. J.R. Gupta and Ors.” pending before the Learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that no charge under Section 420 IPC can be framed against the Petitioner as the same requires a dishonest intention at the inception i.e. at the time of applying for loan and sanctioning of the same. There is no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner had any role to play at the time of either applying for loan or the sanctioning of the same. The role of the Petitioner if any attributed is that after the loan was sanctioned the Petitioner furnished a Deed of Guarantee and a Shortfall Undertaking dated 21st December, 1995....

Mohit and Others Vs. State

Court: Delhi

1. By these appeals the Appellants challenge the common judgment dated 28th July, 2010 whereby the Appellant Mohit has been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and Surjeet and Mohan have been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and the order on sentence dated 30th July, 2010 whereby Mohit has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, and the Appellants Surjeet and Mohan are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Learnedcounsel for the Appellants Mohan and Surjeet states that they have not been named in the FIR and have been falsely implicated by introducing their names in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C....

M/S. Pancea Biotec Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per: Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. M/s Panacea Biotech Ltd., New Delhi, the appellant herein, is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The unit is registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant has been availing cenvat credit under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Central Excise Officers of Division VI of Anti-Evasion visited the unit of the appellant on 18.11.2003. During the scrutiny of the records maintained by the appellant it was found that during the period 1.4.2003 to 18.11.2003, the appellant has cleared pharmaceutical products of two categories i.e. exempted and the dutiable. It was also found that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of duty paid under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted final product. However, the appellant has neither maintained separate...

Durga Prasad Ray Vs. Meenu

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2012(3)DMC51

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2012 passed by ld. Judge- Family Courts in H.M.A. No.87/2010 whereby interim maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and litigation expenses @ Rs. 15,000/- were awarded to the respondent while disposing the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) filed by the respondent. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 02.11.1999 at Delhi and a girl and a boy were born from the wedlock. The petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. Consequently the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is working as Chief Medical Officer at Hindu Rao Hospital and it was his responsibility to maintain his wife and female child who resides with her, the ld. Judge ...

Rifleman Ajay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

ORDER 1. In the present petition, petitioner is resident of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, this petition should have been filed before the Lucknow Regional Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal. However learned counsel for the petitioner did not bring this fact to our notice and argued the matter for two days. Had this fact been brought to our notice at the outset, we would certainly have transferred this case to the Lucknow Regional Bench. Since we have heard the arguments of the parties at length, therefore, we are entertaining this petitioner before this Bench. 2. Petitioner vide this petition has prayed to quash and set aside the discharge order dated 12.05.2010 in the light of Army HQ Policy letter dated 18.12.1988. It is also prayed that directions may be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service with all consequential benefits. 3. Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 30.08.1993. He remained absent from 11.05.1995 to 07.06.1995 for which he was a...

C.C.E, J and K, Jammu Vs. M/S North Sun Enterprises Industrial Estate ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Order No. Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. The above referred six appeals involving common issue  of law and fact are preferred by Revenue against common order in appeal No. 1-6/CE/Appl/Jal/09  dated 6.1.2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the respective assessee/respondents against respective order in original and set aside the duty demand based upon the denial of cenvat credit availed by the respondents. 2. The respondents are manufacturers of steel  tubular poles falling under 7308 90 70 of the  schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They during the relevant period had cleared the final products i.e. steel tubular poles on payment of duty and they also availed cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacture of tubular pole. 3. The manufacturing process carried out in respect of steel tubular pole is that the manufacturer procures duty paid M.S. Black pipes/tubes of different diameters.  These pipes/tubes ...

C.C.E, J and K, Jammu Vs. M/S Continental Transformers and Others

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. These appeals are taken up together as common question of law and facts are involved. . 2. Revenue in these appeals have challenged the respective impugned orders of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 188/CE /Appl /Jal/08 dated 9.4.2008, 203-204/CE/Appl/Jal/08 dated22.4.2008, 171/ CE/Appl/Jal/2007 dated 27.6.2007 and 05/CE/Appl/Jal/2007 dated 16.1.2008 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the refund of duty paid by the respective respondents on HV/LV coils used captively for repairing transformer. 3. The plea of the Department is that fabrication of HV/LV coils do not bring about marketable goods as such, the HV/LV coils admittedly used captively by the respondents for repair of transformers cannot be termed as excisable goods. As such, even if the respondent has paid excise duty while clearing those goods for captive consumption, the respondents would not be entitled for refund under Notification No.56/02-CE dated 14.11.2002. In support of this ...

Shree Luxmi Enterprises Shree Sales M.D. Trading Co Vs. C.C.E, Panchku ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Per Mr. Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): 1. Stay application moved by the appellant  M/s North West Paper Kraft Pvt. Ltd. was decided by a common order dated 24.1.2012. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced thus: “As regards financial position, we note the duty stands confirmed against the appellant on the allegation and offence of clandestine removal, in which case, the true financial position of an assessee would never get reflected in the balance sheet. As such, in view of the evidences as available on record, we direct the applicant/appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.40 Lakhs (Rs.Forty Lakhs only) within a period of 12 weeks from today. Subject to deposit of the above amount, pre-deposit of balance amount of duty and penalty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of  the appeal. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 29.05.2012. 2. From a reading  of the above , it is evident that pre-deposit of penalty by the app...

M/S. Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Vs. Cce, Ludhiana

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 manufacture cotton and acrylic yarn chargeable to central excise duty under chapter 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.  In course of scrutiny of their central excise records for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, it was found that the Appellant  had a system of giving trade discounts.  The discounts were shown in the invoices and were deducted from the assessable value.  However, these discounts were not given at the time of clearance and instead the same were passed on to the customers later on in the form of credit notes.  According to the Department, in terms of the provisions of Section 4, the deduction of only those trade discounts is permissible which are known at the time of clearance and are passed on to customer at that time.  According to the department, there is no evidence that the discounts whose  deduction was claimed, had been passed on to the c...

Salome Singsit Vs. Airline Allied Services Ltd and Others

Court: Delhi

SURESH KAIT, J. 1. The instant petition is being filed while challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Airline Allied Services Ltd.) by which the fixed Term Employment Agreement of the petitioner has not been renewed beyond 31.12.2010. 2. The petitioner joined with the respondents pursuant to an advertisement followed by selection and interview on a contractual basis on the post of Cabin Crew in the Operations Department in the year 1996. The contracts were renewed uninterruptedly from time to time. In the year 2003 she was promoted to the rank of Check Cabin Crew and also given an additional charge of Inspector of Flight Operations Quality Assurance. 3. Vide the communication dated 25.03.2005, the petitioner was advised to bring down her weight within permissible range and 30 days leave on loss of pay was made effective w.e.f. 26.03.2005. 4. In the year 2005-06, the petitioner got married and conceived but unfortunately she suffered miscarriage an...