Delhi Court September 1999 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.
R.B. Jodha Mal and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)690
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for quashing the impugned orders dated 24/25th August, 1973 purporting to cause re-entry in respect of the property known as No.1, Retendone Road, New Delhi, (Plot No. 38 Block 1) and for quashing the demand of the respondents in so far as it relates to the ground rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20,147/- per annum as against Rs. 300/-per annum with regard to the above said property as contained in the letter of the respondents dated November 28,1974. The impugned order of re-entry dated 24/25th August, 1973 has been filed as Annexure G to the writ petition which reads as under : 'REGISTERED A.D. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF WORKS & HOUSING Land and Development Office, South Wing Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-11. No.L-I-9/1 (38)/72 Dated 24.8.73/25.8.73 To M/s. R.B. Jodhamal & Co. (P) Ltd., (Ex-lessee) B-31, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Sub:- Premises situated on Plot No. 38 Block No. 1 known as 1, Ratendon ...
Harinder Singh and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)687; 81(1999)DLT809; I(2000)DMC38; 1999(51)DRJ310
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. Petitioners 2 & 3 are the parents while petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. All of them have jointly filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2 on 30th November, 1987 and unfortunately disputes arose between them since the inception of marriage itself. Pursuant to a settlement (copy annexure 'A'). marriage in between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent by the order dated 20th March, 1998 and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid in cash by petitioner No. 1 to respondent No. 2 towards all her claims. Based on FIR No. 577/94 lodged by respondent No. 2, criminal proceedings under Sections 406/498-A IPC are pending against the petitioners before Ms. Swarn Kanta Mehra, M.M. In the statement made in divorce proceedings, the respondent No. 2 had undertaken not to pursue the said criminal proceedings. It is prayed that pending crimin...
Kavita Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)842; 2000CriLJ315; 81(1999)DLT941; II(1999)DMC508; 1999(51)DRJ272
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.9.1995 passed by Shri V.P. Kandpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi discharging the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the offences charged under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC.2. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged FIR No. 65/95 at the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of the charge sheet under Sections 498-A/406/376/420/495/120-B/511 IPC against the respondents No. 2 to 5. on submission of the charge sheet, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate launched on a process of satisfying himself that a prime facie case has been made out on the merits, and passed a detailed order refusing to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC against the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahd...
Surinder Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Champa Rani
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)829; 81(1999)DLT928; 1999(51)DRJ263; 1999RLR517
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of Additional Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'DRC Act'), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that there was no merit in the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the appeal, petitioner has filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the outset, I must say that on the finding of fact with regard to deposit of rent by two Courts below whether deposit was in time or not, ordinarily a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been maintained.2. Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that with regard to the rent for the months of January, 1993 to June 1993 amounting to Rs. 2310/- same was deposited on 25.1.1993 while the rent for the months of July, 1993 to December, 1993 was deposited...
K.V. Nath Vs. Raghunath Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)833; 1999CriLJ4740; 81(1999)DLT895; 1999(51)DRJ267
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1994 passed by Shri D.S. Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.2. In brief, the prosecution case was that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises bearing No. 36/1, Raghunath Building as a tenant of the respondent Raghunath. He was paying Rs. 100/- per month as rent for residential portion and Rs. 70/- per month as rent for a shop of the said building. On. 8.4.1981, at about 10.30. p.m. the respondents came to the spot with intent to dispossess the petitioner from the residential portion of the said building. As per prosecution case, while the respondent Raghunath engaged the petitioner in conversion, the remaining respondents entered the residential portion occupied by the petitioner and dispossessed him...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Chenab Textiles Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT717TriDel
1. These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue with reference to the respective impugned orders involving the common issues and therefore, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Whether following items are eligible as capital goods to avail Modvat credit is an issue to be considered in these appeals. PVC, armoured conductors, aluminium cables, insulated sheathed/unsheathed cables & wires, enamelled winding wire of copper all classifiable under Chapter 85.44.3. It was brought to my notice that the issue involved herein has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E.4. On going through the facts and circumstances and since the issue has already been covered by the aforesaid decision, following the same I accept the contention of the respondents and accordingly I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the department. In the result, these appeals are dismissed....
Samtel (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT738TriDel
1. These are 12 appeals. Appeal Bearing Nos. 1078, 1080-1083/98-NB are filed by the appellant M/s Samtel India Limited. Remaining appeals bearing Nos. E/1671 and E/2317 to 2322/98-NB are filed by the Department. Since the issues are common in all these appeals and they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.The dispute is in respect of the following items with reference to the appeals filed by the party. The details are as follows :-Cables 37,458.00Transformer 43,626.00Induction coil 225.00Connector 3.044.00 -----------Cables 43,456.00Connector 3,755.00Transformer 609.00Stainrode 5,193.00Welding electrodes 12.491.00 -----------Cables 20,472.00Transformer 1,648.00 -----------Cables 4,621.00Video distributors 25,430.00Solenoid valves 1,775.00 -----------Latex WPP disc 600.00Transformer 920.00Pressure regulator 1,268.00O-Ring and Vane/ rotor for CRT 21,097.00Panel 2,550.00Transmitting tube 13,200.00Cables 2,808.00 ----------- 2. Whether the above items are el...
Sindhu Resettlement Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT182TriDel
1. The appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Rajkot confirming the demand of duty issued to the appellants and imposing a penalty under rule 173Q.2. The Advocate for the appellant contends that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cement blocks, cement pipes and cement collars from 1949. The said goods became excisable for the first time in the year 1975. Appellant thereafter applied for licence.Subsequently, the appellant did not pay duty during the period 1985-86 and 1986-87 and it is for this period that the duty has been demanded.She contends that appellant did not pay duty because it was under the impression that it was entitled to the benefit of Notification Nos.7/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985 and 175/86-CE., dated 1-3-1986. It was not aware that the ceiling for exemption had been removed and the department has not advised it of such a change. She, therefore, contends that the appellant did not have the intention to evade duty.She further...
Triveni Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT252TriDel
1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. against the order dated 12-3-1992 passed by the Additional Collector confirming the demand of duty in respect of 61.685 MT of Iron & Steel scrap found short during the visit of the factory premises by the Central Excise Officers on 8-11-1990, The Additional Collector also confiscated the seized copper scrap and aluminium scrap with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants.2. Shri M.P. Devnath, learned Advocate, submitted that the proper verification of the stock was not done by the officers; that the physical stock was lying in the factory; that officers found 1 M.T. of scrap on the shop floor which was compared with the recorded balance of waste and scrap in RG-1 which was 62.685 M.T.; that this quantity was scattered throughout the premises of the factory which was not looked into by the officers. He, further, submitted...
Mohinder Parmar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT824TriDel
1. The dispute relates to the valuation, redemption fine and penalty levied on BMW car imported by the appellant. It has been submitted that the valuation of the car should have been made based on the list price of the manufacturer after giving eligible deductions towards depreciation. According to the list pricey made available by the appellant, the price of the car was 4761.54 as the basic price. The Customs authorities have instead taken the value of 7299.00 which is inclusive of local taxes in UK. They, therefore, submit that the valuation has been done erroneously and duty collected at a higher value. They also submit that as the appellant was abroad for over twenty years, imposition of such a high redemption fine and penalty was not justified. The learned DR agrees that the valuation of the imported cars is normally done by the Customs authorities with reference to list prices and not the purchase prices in various countries. No reason for this variation for the purpose of valua...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »