Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The appellants in the Latent Patent Appeals, the petitioner in C.W.P. 3063/95 and the petitioner in C.W.P. 4082/95 have come forward with a grievance that their services have been dispensed with by the respondents on extraneous reasons which cannot be sustained in law. They were all working at one time in 168 Infantry Brigade deployed in the place called Samba, in a border area.2. Each of the appellants and each of the petitioners has got its own case to relate which requires a careful consideration. At the outset it may be noted that the question to be decided is whether the respondents have established their case against each of the appellants and the petitioners who have approached this Court.3. The genesis of the present action was the arrest of Gnr. Aya Singh and Gnr. Sarwan Dass who were alleged to be assisting Pakistan SSI endangering the security of India. They were arrested in the year 1975 on suspicion of their being spies passing on secret information t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 91(2001)DLT291
ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.9.1998 whereby, he has quashed the Summary Security Court proceedings and the order of dismissal of Constable Mohinder Singh from service and has ordered his reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits.2. The relevant facts essential for deciding this appeal are set out as follows. Mr. Mohinder Singh, (who died and is now represented by his wife and two minor children and will be referred to hereinafter as respondent) was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Constable in April 1988 and became subject to the Border Security Force Act (hereinafter the Act). and Border Security Force Rules (hereinafter the Rules). In October 1993 he was posted in 'B' Coy of 92 Battalion BSF which was under the command of Shri Shiv Kumar Garg, Asstt. Commandant and was detailed for election duty. Some other companies of other battalions were also detailed for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT716TriDel
1.These are three appeals filed by M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SIL'), being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal, both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The issue for consideration in all these three appeals is, whether the benefit of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 (as amended) could be availed of in respect of the duty paid inputs captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable specified final products, in a case where the central excise duty on the inputs had been paid under Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of re-rolled non-alloy steel products, bars, flats, angles etc.classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manutactured in their re-rolling mills, when u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 95(2002)DLT217; 2002(80)ECC72; 2002(139)ELT36(Del)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') challenge is to the order dated 9th November 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act) and consequentially directing dismissal thereof.2. Factual background highlighted by the petitioner is essentially as follows:Petitioner, a trading unit, imported a consignment of 44000 pieces of video cassettes of make of Panasonic NV, E-180, from the United Arab Emirates. A bill of entry bearing No. 238737 was filed at the Chennai Customs House of clearance. An audit of the bill of entry in respect of the declaration made by the petitioner was conducted and it was found that the concerned goods were covered by Tariff heading 8523.90. The Customs Authorities were of the view that there was discrepancy in the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1426; 95(2002)DLT684; 2002(61)DRJ422
R.C. Jain, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing of externment order dated 28th July, 2000 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District under Sections 47/50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') thereby directing the petitioner to remove himself beyond the limits of National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of two years with effect from 5th August, 2000. 2. Externment proceedings under Section 47 the Act were initially commenced against the petitioner with a notice dated 15-2-1994 issued under Section 50 of the Act. However, before the notice could be acted upon and the proceedings could be taken to logical conclusion the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in several cases and remained confined in jail. Consequently upon his acquittal in the criminal cases and on his release the proceedings were revived and three supplemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)569; 96(2002)DLT269; [2002]254ITR755(Delhi)
S.B Sinha, C.J.1. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 234A of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is in question in this writ petition.2. The brief facts are as under:-The petitioners earned substantial capital gains for the assessment year1995-96 for which the return was due to be filed on 31.10.1995. However, taxes duewere paid on 25.09.1995, i.e, before the due date of filing of the return, but he returnwas field on 29.09.1996, i.e., after a delay of about 11 months. Though returned incomewas accepted on 29.01.1998, yet interest has been charged under the provisions ofSection 234A on the ground that tax paid on 25.09.1995 cannot be reduced from the taxdue on assessment. The assessed filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Acton 09.11.1998 before the Administrative Commissioner requesting to delete interestcharged under Section 234 of the Act. The Commissioner in his order dated 09.03.1999upheld the action of the Assessing Officer stating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2002)172CTR(Del)465
S.B. Sinha, C.J.Interpretation of the provisions of section 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is in question in this writ petition.2. The brief facts are as under :The petitioners earned substantial capital gains for the assessment year 1995-96 for which the return was due to be filed on 31-10-1995. However, taxes due were paid on 25-9-1995, i.e., before the due date of filing of the return, but the return was filed on 29-9-1996, i.e., after a delay of about 11 months. Though returned income was accepted on 29-1-1998, yet interest has been charged under the provisions of section 234A on the ground that tax paid on 25-9-1995, cannot be reduced from the tax due on assessment. The assessed filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Act on 9-11-1998, before the Administrative Commissioner requesting to delete interest charged under section 234A of the Act. The Commissioner in his order dated 9-3-1999, upheld the action of the assessing officer st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 99(2002)DLT221; 2002(64)DRJ109
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Although it is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') to refer the question set out therein for the opinion of this Court but in view of the fact that there is no dispute on facts found by the Tribunal and the question raised is a pure question of Law, we dispense with a formal statement of facts; treat the petition as a regular reference and proceed to answer the question proposed.2. The question posed for consideration of this Larger Bench is, as to whether even for a mere change of opinion by the Income-tax Officer (in short 'ITO') action under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be brought into operation.3. With a view to advert to the said question, the factual matrix bereft of all unnecessary details may be noticed:-4. The assessment year under reference is 1987-88. The relevant previous year is 1st July 1985 to 30th June 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2002)174CTR(Del)617
S. B. Sinha, C. J.Although it is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') to refer the question set out therein for the opinion of this court but in view of the fact that there is no dispute on facts found by the Tribunal and the question raised is a pure question of law, we dispense with a formal statement of facts; treat the petition as a regular reference and proceed to answer the question proposed.2. The question posed for consideration of this larger Bench is, as to whether even for a mere change of opinion by the Income Tax Officer action under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be brought into operation.With a view to advert to the said question, the factual matrix bereft of all unnecessary details may be noticedThe assessment year under reference is 1987-88. The relevant previous year is 1-7-1985, to 30-6-19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2003)134PLR18
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The perennial problem of costing of DDA flats has once again given rise to this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners were originally registrants under the New Pattern Scheme of 1979 (NPS). In September 1993 a self financing scheme VI-B was announced and persons registered under the NPS were permitted to convert to self-financing scheme. The petitioners applied for conversion and their conversion were accepted.3. In 1994-1985 the SFS VII and VIII scheme registrants were allocated flats but no allocation was made in respect of VI-B scheme. On 8.8.1996 IX SFS scheme was announced and the same was open to genera public as also to the registrants of VI-B scheme. It was stated for the petitioners that this would be the last opportunity given to them and other registrants of VI-B Self Financing Scheme. The petitioners got them registered under the scheme but were still not allocated flats in the draw of lots held for the said IX Self Financing Scheme which resu...
Tag this Judgment!