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.
Rohit Bagga Vs. State (Govt. of Nct)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(53)DRJ5
Cyriac Joseph, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail to the petitioner who is an accused in FIR No. 237/99 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 11th August, 1999. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant Smt. Gagandeep. He is stated to be a patient of epilepsy. It is stated that he gets fits in the odd hours. The petitioner has produced Annexure-C, medical certificate to show that he is suffering from epilepsy. The investigation in the case has been completed and the petitioner is no more required in judicial custody for the purpose of investigation. There is no reason or circumstance to have a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will flee from justice or tamper with evidence if he is released on bail.3. In these circumstanc...
Ashok Kumar Mishra Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT361TriDel
1. By the captioned application, the applicant has stated that the following points of law arise out of the Tribunal's order :- "(1) Whether the statement of Shri Ziauddin is a reliable piece of evidence without affording opportunity of cross-examination of him for penal action Under Section 112(b). (2) Whether the constructive possession of the goods is essential for imposition of penalty Under Section 112(b) of the Act. (3) Whether the penalty Under Section 112(b) of the Act can be imposed merely because the name of a person has been uttered by the Smuggler of the goods." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the DRI Officers on the basis of information intercepted a DCM Toyota truck. The driver of the truck on interception revealed that smuggled Chinese raw silk was loaded in the said truck on Indo-Nepal Border; that there was one trader was also with the truck who got down near Naugarh with the instructions that he will meet the truck driver at Ashapur petrol pump; that in ca...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Jaijawan Jaikisan Ssk Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT744TriDel
1. Arguing the Departmental Appeal, Shri V.M. Udhoji, ld. JDR submits that the appeal is against the Or-der-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Pune dated 12-10-1994 by which the Collector (Appeals) had set aside the Asstt. Collector's order. Asstt. Collector had denied concessional rate of duty to the present Respondents on the ground that they were not eligible for the concessional rate of duty under Notification Nos. 130/83 and 131/83 (both dated 27-4-1983) for clearances of sugar under "Additional Entitlement under Incentive Scheme". The Respondents had been issued certificates under the scheme for the years 1985-86 to 1989-90. Respondent's claim for the concessional rate of duty for clearances for the year 1991-92 under the scheme, was considered by the the Asstt. Collector and he had held that they would not be eligible for the entitlement in terms of condition No.4 of the Release Order issued by the Directorate of Sugar, Government of India. Collector (Appeals) had hel...
Birla Periclase Vs. Designated Authority of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT939TriDel
1. When these matters came up before us on 13-8-1999 we directed the appellant to take out notice to all concerned parties interested in the outcome of these appeals and also to the designated authority. Pursuant to that direction, appellant served notice of the appeal and copies of the memo of appeal on all the opposite parties including the designated authority. Evidence of service have been produced before this Tribunal.This Tribunal also sent notice to the designated authority by post on 6-9-1999 fixing the hearing of the case today 29-9-1999. In spite of the service of above notices, designated authority has not cared to enter appearance.2. Rule 6 of CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Anti-dumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996, reads "On receiving notice of appeal, the designated authority shall transmit to the Tribunal the records and the procedure leading to the appeal including confidential information, if any, under Rule 8 of the Countervailing Duty Rules or Rule 8 of Anti-dumping ...
Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT150TriDel
1. The applicant has filed this application stating that a mistake has crept in inasmuch as the appeal before the Hon'ble Bench was against impugned order No. 340/C.E./CHD/98, dated 19-7-1996 where the following issues get settled; (2) The product is classified under Chapter sub-heading 2404.60 on the basis of the judgment of CEGAT 1994 (71) E.L.T. 128 (3) The price remained the same even though there was change/increase in rates of duty during the period 25-8-1990 to 26-2-1994.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel submits that this Tribunal by its Final Order No. A/1128/97-NB, dated 5-12-1997 observed : "We note that the basic issue is whether the refund claim is maintainable or not. We have already seen that there was no order in respect of the appellant classifying their product under Chapter sub-heading No. 2404.60 and hence no refund arises. A refund claim does not arise unless there is a change in classification or rate of duty. In the case of the appellant no evidence has been plac...
Indian Newspaper Society Vs. Designated Authority of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT713TriDel
1. These appeals are against the Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping) recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on newsprint as per their final determination. Pursuant to the said order, determination arrived at by the Designated Authority, Government of India has not taken any decision to impose any duty. As per Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, Central Government may within three months from the date of publication of the final findings of the Designated Authority impose duty on importation into India of the article covered by the final finding arrived at by the Designated Authority. Only on such imposition of duty by Notification, liability will be cast on the appellants. Though more than one and a half years have lapsed from the date of final determination by the Designated Authority, the Government of India have not imposed any duty by issue of a Notification. Consequently, the petitioners are not as at present aggrieved by the determination of the Designated Authority. In this...
Nath Bros. Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)1009
ORDERI.A. 4942/99 in S. No. 595/80 1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC for production of additional documents. Reply has not been filed and today request is made for further time. On 17th May, 1999 four weeks time was given. There is no Explanationn why the reply has not been filed even after more than four months. Request for further time is disallowed. 2. Arguments heard. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that evidence of the plaintiff is yet not concluded, the documents are beyond suspicion and it is not necessary that the relevancy of the documents should be shown at this stage, no prejudice will be caused to the other party; these should be accepted and provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 are not mandatory. He has relied on Rajdhani Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Northern India Motion Pictures Association 1980 82 PLR 179, Kancherla Saradha Devi Vs . Saripella Sivaramaraju and others : AIR1995AP291 , Madan Gopal Kanodia v. Mamraj Maniram and Ot...
Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)291; 82(1999)DLT530
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This petition arises out of the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 303/1984 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendants under Order 13 Rules 1 & 2 seeking for production of certain documents and also for allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on the basis of the said documents. 2. The suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a decree for possession of the suit premises against Smt. Sheela Devi, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners/defendants. In the said suit, on the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the suit was listed for recording evidence of the plaintiff. At that stage, i.e. on 11.8.1997 the court framed an additional issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary party. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 21.8.1997 the petitioner/defendants filed the aforesaid application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alias that as the on...
Sheila Khullar and anr. Vs. Rohini Khullar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)341; 84(2000)DLT261
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The revision is filed by the defendants challenging the order of the lower Court dated 19.12.1998 rejecting their application for amendment of the written statement. The suit property is in Golf Link. One Khushi Mal had three sons namely, Pearey Lal, Amar Nath and Jagan Nath. The first petitioner is the widow of Jagan Nath. Second petitioner is one of the sons of Jagan Nath. The 4th petitioner is another son of Jagan Nath. 2. The first respondent Rohini Khullar is the widow of late Prem Khullar, one of the sons of Jagan Nath. Second respondent Ms. Yogytata Khullar and third respondent Ms. Malavika Khullar are the daughters of the first respondent. 3. The first respondent filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from dealing with the property, subject matter of the suit. 4. Khushi Mal, the father of the three sons died on 8.7.1972. The suit property was owned by the partnership owned by the family in which the father and three sons w...
National Research Development Corporation Vs. M/S. Himachal Carbon Pro ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)548; 82(1999)DLT467
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.I.A. 11742 OF 1997:1. This is an application dated 19.3.1997 for extension of time for making the award till 18.3.1997. Although notice of this application has been duly served on the respondent as is evident in the orders passed by the Joint Registrar on 23.7.1998, no reply has been filed thereto nor was any objection raised before me in the course of arguments. Although objections to the Award had been preferred it was not agitated that the Award had been published beyond the prescribed period. In Narsing Das Hiralal Ltd. and Another Vs . Bisandhayal Satyanarain Firm : AIR1954Ori29 and Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. Vs . J.K. Eastern Industries Private Ltd. : AIR1956Cal658 , time was extended in similar circumstances. thereforee, I allow this application with no order as to costs.S.No. 2697-A of 1997:2. The facts which have given rise to the disputes in the present case are that the Petitioner, National Research Development Corporation, (N.R.D.C.) had made a c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »