Delhi Court February 2000 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.
All India Handloom Fabric Marketing Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Phelps and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)484; 84(2000)DLT570; 2000(53)DRJ409
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th July, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi decreeing the suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant, in respect of the premises No. 9-A, Connaught Place, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises') and further passing a decree of damages/mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1989 till the date of possession. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession and for recovery of damage against appellant/tenant alleging therein that vide lease dated 20th May, 1967 the appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises for a period of 10 years with effect from 1st January, 1967; the term of the lease expired in 1977 and no fresh lease was executed and the appellant continued to be in possession of the suit premises because of protection...
inderjeet Singh Vs. Cbi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)641; 84(2000)DLT480; 2000(53)DRJ192
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. CC-63/94 tendering pardon to the accomplice V. Bhaskaran. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the petitioner joined the Indian Administrative Services in July 1969. It is alleged that during the period from 1st July, 1969 to 28th March, 1987, the petitioner illegally acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. As per the prosecution case, the accomplice V. Bhaskaran abetted the petitioner in committing the offence, which is punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Resultantly the FIR RC-1/1987-ACU-I/CBI/SIC-1, New Delhi dated 24.3.1987 was registered by the CBI. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge sheet against the petitioner and the accomplice V. Bhaskaran. During the trial the accomplice V. Bhaskaran filed an application before the Special Judge for gr...
Major S.K. JaIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ARBLR737(Delhi); 2000(54)DRJ188
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is working in Indian Army as Captain. He had submitted his application for premature retirement in view of domestic problems being faced by him. His application for premature retirement having been rejected by the orders dated 23.7.1999 by the respondents, in this petition he challenges the said rejection and prays for quashing of the orders dated 23.7.1999 and seeks mandamus directing the respondents to consider afresh application of the petitioner seeking premature retirement from the army services in accordance with the policies of the respondents. 2. Petitioner was enrolled in the army SEP. Clerk(GD) in Bengal Engineering Group. Thereafter he was promoted to rank of Havaldar. In July 1987, he got initial rank of Sec. Lieutenant in the Army serving as administration officer and thereafter he was promoted from time to time and ultimately got the rank of Captain and was posted at Delhi in May 1996. The petitioner submits that he had to face the series ...
Mangal SaIn Chariya Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: 84(2000)DLT661
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioner is working with respondent-Food Corporation of India. At the time when he filed this writ petition in the year 1988, he was in the cadre of AG-III (Ministerial) which was given to him in the year 1973. He claims that he was entitled to be inducted in the Movement Cadre since the date of his promotion as Assistant Grade-I as Juniors were inducted and on that basis he be given consequential reliefs. He further prays that illegal induction of respondents 3 to 9 be set-aside. He has made respondents 3 to 9 as parties claiming that respondents 3 to 9 are his juniors who were inducted in the Movement Cadre before him which resulted in discrimination qua the petitioner. 2. To appreciate the controversy, ritual of stating the facts in brief may be performed first: Petitioner claims that he joined Northern Railway as Office Clerk on 27.7.1964. In 1968 M/s. R.P. Singh, J.C. Wason, R.K. Chadha and K.K. Sharma, Clerks in Northern Railway joined Food Corporation of ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Zinc Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT135TriDel
1. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents inn spite of notice. The notice issued to the respondent was received back with the remarks "factory closed". Therefore, the appeal is taken in the absence of the respondents.2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal dated 16-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the benefit of Modvat credit on crucible as inputs used in the manufacture of zinc ingot.3. Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Crucibles are not included under the definition of inputs as provided under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. He submits that the Crucibles are used as melting apparatus for molten material. Therefore, it cannot be said as input. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.5. In this case the issue is whether Crucibles used in the process of manufacture of final product is an input elig...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. M.P. Veneer and Plywood (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT744TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by Revenue against the following orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals): (1) Appeals No. E-755-756/99A against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 883-884/98, dated 30-12-1998. (2) Appeal No. E-3333/98A against Order-in-Appeal No. 348/98, dated. 18-6-1998. (3) Appeal No. 3332/98A against Order-in-Appeal No. 359/98, dt. 23-6-1998.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Veneer & Plywood P. Ltd, the Respondents manufacture teak veneer, plywood and flooring purquet; that they sale these products to wholesale-buyers at their factory gate as well as remove the goods to their Depots for retail sale; that they also manufacturer teak veneers in bundle form on behalf of M/s. Sharda Plywood Industries Ltd. on job work basis.The Assistant Commissioner ordered provisional assessment of RT12 returns under letter dated on 12-9-1990; that though this Order was with reference to price lists No.39/90 and 51/90, the B-13 bond executed by the Respondents did no restrict the p...
Lustre Print Media Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)LC84Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala during the period of dispute, in the erstwhile name of Govan Brothers (Rampur) Ltd., By show cause notice dated 31-8-1989, the Department asked them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 6,136.73 should not be demanded and recovered as Central Excise duty, under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, on the clearances of Zardayukt Pan Masala and Saada Meetha Pan Masala under gate passes dated 25/27-2-1989 effected without payment of duty.The Department, in the said show cause notice, alleged that the goods were cleared to parties other than those from whom the same were received and therefore the benefits of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules were not available to them. It was further alleged that the goods were fresh goods cleared "in the garb of goods alleged to have been received under D-3s under Rule 173H with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellants r...
S.S. Group Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT480TriDel
1. The impugned order has confiscated two export consignments of readymade garments for contravening the provisions of Section 50 read with Section 76 of the Customs Act, 1962. The confiscation has been ordered under Sections 113(d) and (i) [presumably 113(h)(ii)] of the Customs Act. A redemption fine of Rs. 1,26,000/- was imposed to re-claim the goods and a penalty of Rs. 63,000/- has been imposed on the exporter.2. The facts of the case are that the exporter had filed customs documents for export of two consignments of ladies cotton long skirts.The values declared were about Rs. 16.6 lakhs and Rs. 8 lakhs respectively at a rate of US $ 1.00 per piece. The customs authorities carried out market enquiry about the declared prices and came to the conclusion that the price would be between Rs. 20 to Rs. 22 per piece.Thereupon, allegation was raised that the exporter had declared a high value for the purpose of obtaining excess drawback. When the exporter was made aware of this allegation...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Poddar Pigment Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT142TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 30(KDT)CE/JPR-l/99, dated 13-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur.2. Arguing for the Revenue, Shri S.K. Das submitted that Modvat credit is not permissible on two grounds. At the first instance, the party has availed Modvat credit after six months from the date of issue of Bill of Entry and secondly, the party has availed credit based upon reconstructed triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry. He submits that the same is not permissible under Rule 57T(3) or Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules.3. Shri K.K. Anand submitted that as regards first issue, it is not in dispute since the Assistant Commissioner has not given any finding on this issue and no appeal has been filed by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the very issue. As regards second issue, the Commissioner has decided issue in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal v...
Fordham Pressing (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT775TriDel
1. In these appeals filed by M/s. Fordham Pressing (I) & M/s. Advance Engineers, the matter relates to the classification of the product, moulds. According to the appellants these moulds were for use in the machinery for producing ceramic products and should be classified under Heading 84.66 of the Tariff as parts of the machinery. According to the Revenue, Moulds are specifically described under Heading No. 84.8 and as they are specifically covered by that Heading 84.8 they have to be classified therein in terms of the Chapter Notes under Section XVI of the Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) following his earlier order in appeal had held that the correct classification of the goods in question was under Heading No. 84.80.2. The appellants have prayed for decision in merits. We have heard Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.3. It is an admission position that the goods concerned are moulds and they are specifically described under Headin...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »