Delhi Court January 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S Lumax Automotives Systems Ltd. Vs. Cce, Delhi - Iv, Faridabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Rakesh Kumar : The appellant are manufacturers of automobile parts. The dispute in this case is as to whether during 2006-2007 they would be eligible for Cenvat credit of service tax paid on godown rental and on outward freight for transportation of the finished goods upto the customers premises. The appellant had rented a godown outside the factory for storing the inputs as well as the finished goods and availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 22,860/- of service tax paid on godown rent. The Cenvat credit availed in respect of outward freight upto the customers premises is Rs. 9,47,550/-. The appellants stand has been that all their sales are on FOR destination basis satisfying the criteria prescribed in this regard in the Boards Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 and, hence, it is the customers premises which is the place of removal and, hence, all the services availed upto the place of removal would be eligible for Cenvat credit. The department being of the view that the appellants sal...
M/S Pramod Telecom (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Rakesh Kumar: The appellant are manufacturers of telephone sets chargeable to Central Excise duty. During period from July 2005 to March 2007 they took Cenvat credit of Rs. 42,347/- on the basis of various documents all of which were photocopies of the original. Credit of Rs. 10,194/- in respect of four consignments imported through courier M/s Fedex was taken on the basis of photocopy of the bill of entry filed by the courier which had been received from the courier. The credit of remaining of Rs. 32,153/- in respect of 10 consignments had been taken on the basis of invoices issued by the suppliers, but at the time of checking of records, the only photocopies of the original were available and the original invoices were not available. The department being of the view that the appellant in respect of above goods would not be eligible for Cenvat credit, as the same has been taken on the basis of photocopies, issued a show cause notice dated 19/01/09 invoking extended period for recovery...
Sauranshu Sinha and Others Vs. Union of India, Through Its Secretary a ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J): 1. All these four Applications, inter alia, involve a common question relating to the propriety and correctness of filling up the posts newly created as a result of restructuring of the cadre of Section Officer in the Central Secretariat Service (for short CSS) from among the persons whose names appeared in the select list of 2003 based on their seniority in the feeder cadre of Assistants. For this reason, these Applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Besides, the aforesaid question, certain different issues too have been raised in individual Applications which are also suitably dealt with at appropriate places in this order. All the parties jointly agreed to take OA No.1083/2007 as the lead case in which the counsels made their principal submissions. In other three Applications, the concerned advocates made their respective submissions as well on the basis of the averments made therein. The applicants in...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. M/S Hindustan Fer ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
G.D. Agrawal, VP 1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 30.03.2012 and 10.04.2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. 2. The common ground raised by the assessee in both these appeals reads as under:- Grounds in ITA No.2787/Del/2012:- "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that since block of assets that of (i) office building (5%), (ii) Factory buildings (10%), (iii) roads and culvers (5%), (iv) water system, drainage and sewerage (5%), (v) office appliance (25%) have not been put to use depreciation is not to be allowed. 2. Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts in holding that disallowance depreciation of all assets have been made in AY 2004-05 as well. 3. The appellant craves the consent to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing." Grounds in ITA No.2788/Del/2012:- "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred on law and on fact in making disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery...
Mahabir Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2082/2011 % January 10, 2013 MAHABIR SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Singh, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. R-1. Mr. S.L.Gupta, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner retired as a Naib Subedar from the Army in the year 1979. After retirement the petitioner was drawing pension from his employer/Army for which the disbursal agency was the respondent No.2/State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch and paying agency was Pay and Accounts office of the respondent No.1.2. The Central Government brought into force the recommendations of the fifth Central pay commission and which was informed to the defence service chiefs by means of a letter dated 24.11.1997. The date for crediting of the first instalment of arrears of pension was on or before 31.12.1997, and for the second in...
R. Kothandaraman Vs. the Speaker, Lok Sabha Secretariat and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P. (C) No.7132/2009 Reserved on : January 04, 2013 Pronounced on: January, 10, 2013 R. KOTHANDARAMAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K.Saini, Adv. with Mr. R. Kothandaraman, petitioner in person. versus THE SPEAKER, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya with Mr. Varun Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the relief of quashing the action of the respondents in voluntarily retiring the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be voluntarily retired inasmuch as before the cut-off date given for bringing the voluntary retirement into effect, the petitioner had withdrawn the request. Respondents counter this argument by stating that the petitioner having accepted and utilized the terminal benefits including ...
Anil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Sudha Aggarwa and anr
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 489/2011 & Crl. M. A. No. 17450/2011 ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Geeta A Kumar, Advocate Versus SUDHA AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Respondent Through Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR ORDER 10 01.2013 % 1. By this order, I propose to dispose of the present Criminal Revision Petition whereby the Petitioner seeks setting aside/ modification of the orders dated 28th August, 2010 and 19th July, 2011 passed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are : a) That the Petitioner and the respondent no.1 are husband and wife and the respondent no. 2 is the daughter of the parties. On 27.10.1995 respondent no.1 filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C in the court of ld. M.M., Delhi claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter/ the respondent no.2 herein, against the petitioner @ Rs.500/- per month each. An appl...
M.S. Saxena and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.1621/2007 % January 10, 2013 M.S. SAXENA & ANR. Through: ...... Petitioners None. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. R.S.Mathur, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are retired employees of the respondent No.2/M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking the relief of grant of revised pay-scales as per the fifth pay commission in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Officers Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., 1990 (3) SCC 436.2. The petitioners were appointed as officers and supervisors in respondent No.2/ M/s. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (IDPL). They already had retired when the present petition was filed.3. The very issue which is urged in this writ petition was a subject matter of a writ ...
Lalea Trading Limited Vs. Anant Raj Projects Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI O.M.P. No. 718 of 2012 Reserved on:20. h December 2012 Decision on:10. h January 2013 LALEA TRADING LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocates with Mr.Saurabh Seth, Mr. Vijay Kaundal, Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Mr. Sushmit Pushkar, Mr. Sumit Roy, Ms. Udisha Sahey and Mr. Anchit Oswal, Advocates. versus ANANT RAJ PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sibal and Ms. Pooja M. Saijwal, Advocates for R-1. Mr. C.S. Vaidhyanathan and Mr. Vibhu Bakhru, Senior Advocates with Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. Anuradha Mukherjee and Ms. Jyoti Dastidar, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT 10 01.2013 1. Lalea Trading Limited (LTL), Cyprus has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) seeking certain interim reliefs against the Respondents arising out of a Share Subscription Agreement (SS...
Central Bureau of Investigation Thr Ravi Gambhir Vs. Smt Isha Devi and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CRL) 1833/2012 Decided on:10. h January, 2013 % CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THR RAVI GAMBHIR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI. Mr. Vivek Sood, Amicus curiae. versus SMT ISHA DEVI & ORS Through ..... Respondent Mr. S.L. Gupta, Mr. Ram Ashray, Advs. for R-3. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MS. MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL) 1. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20 th July, 2012 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal directing Director CBI to register FIR on the basis of two certificates given one to the Petitioners counsel and the other to the counsel for Insurance company and after investigating the criminal conspiracy in the official record to file a charge-sheet against the person/ persons and to complete the investigation within four months from the date of the order.2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that before passing an order against the Petitioner no notice was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »