Delhi Court February 2000 Judgments

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Camphor and Allied Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT531TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the product 'Amberone, manufactured by M/s. Camphor Allied Products Ltd. is classifiable under sub-heading 2914.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order or under sub-heading 3302.90, as claimed by the Revenue.Shri H.K. Jain, learned S.D.R., submitted that as per the test report dated 15-1-1993 in respect of the sample drawn on 13-4-1992, the sample was in the form of light Pale Yellow colour liquid having woody odour; it was mixture of odoriferous substances other than organic chemical.He further mentioned that on the request of the respondents, another sample of the impugned product was drawn and sent to the Chief Chemist on 27-9-1993; that as Chief Chemist desired to have a fresh sample, again a fresh sample was sent to him on 30-7-1996; that as per his test report dated 28-1-1997 "The sample is in the form of Pale Yellow viscous liquid having p...

White Lily Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeals have been filed against the orders of the Asstt. CIT, Central Cir-20 dt. 29th December, 1997 under s. 158BA of the Act. The block period covered under the assessment relates to 1st April, 1986 to 1st November, 1996 in both the cases. As the issue in both the appeals are common the appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The appellants are companies incorporated under the Companies Act.The search and seizure operation under s. 132 took place on the business premises of the assessee on 1st November, 1996. Order under s.158BA was passed by the AO on 29th December, 1997. The order was served on the appellants on 2nd January, 1998. As per provisions of s.253(1)(b) of the Act the first appeal before us should have been filed on or before 1st February, 1998. However, the same were filed on 22nd May, 1998 late by 109 days. By application both the appellants have requested us for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. It was argued by the learned counsel th...

Naresh Sharma Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)456; 2000CriLJ4874; 84(2000)DLT657; 2000(53)DRJ733

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail to the petitioner Mr. Naresh Sharma who is accused to have committed offences under Sections 120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme, (Banning) Act, 1978. Even though the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR No. 219/99 registered at Chittranjan Park Police Station, he is one of the accused persons sent up for trial as per the charge sheet filed in the Court on 20.9.1999. The other accused persons sent up for trial are Lambert Kroeger, Dalip Arora, Ashok Chatterjee and M/s. Maple Leaf Trading International (P) Ltd. Though the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground of illness of his wife, his application for regular bail was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. His application for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessi...

Lambert Kroger Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)507; 85(2000)DLT46

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail to the petitioner Lambert Kroger, a German National, who is an accused in Fir No. 219/99 registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park under Section 120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978. The said FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint of one Shri Lakshmi Chand Gupta. Since the petitioner had already been arrested by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate on 8-7-1999 for of the provisions under FERA 1973 violations and had been in judicial custody, he was arrested in this case on 26-7-1999 through production warrants and was remanded to police custody for three days and thereafter he continued to be in judicial custody. 2. According to the complaint filed by Shri Lakshmi Chand Gupta and the FIR registered on the basis of the said complaint, the complainant...

Lambert Kroger Vs. Enforcement Directorate

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)584; 2000CriLJ2125; 85(2000)DLT62; 2000(53)DRJ288; 2000(69)ECC592

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. This Petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail to the Petitioner Mr. Lambort Kroger, a German National who is the accused in the Criminal Complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, under Section 56 read with Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) for offences committed under Sections 19, 29(1)(b), read with Section 68 and Section 29(1)(a) and 30(1) of the said Act.2. The petitioner was arrested on 8th July, 1999. Though the petitioner filed an application for bail in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it was dismissed on 30th July, 1999 observing that the investigation was at a crucial stage and that if the petitioner was released on bail there was every possibility of the investigation being hampered and the evidence being tampered with. Later on the petitio...

Narinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh Sethi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)599; 2000(54)DRJ53

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The facts of the present case are not disputed between the parties, who are siblings of each other. The two Plaintiffs are the sisters of the Defendant No. 1. All of them being the children of late Smt. Gobind Kaur and late Lt. Col. H.S. Sethi. The dispute between them pertains to property bearing No. B-7/6, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi. A collaboration Agreement has been executed by Defendant No. 1 with Defendant No. 2 in respect of the development of this property.2. The original lease of the plot was in the name of late Smt. Gobind Kaur who expired on 16.4.1976. In his Written Statement Defendant No. 1 has stated that she left behind a Will dated 1.10.1974, but whilst this document has been mentioned in the List of Documents filed along with the Written Statement it has not been filed. The reason for this non-filing is that it is misplaced. Shri A.S. Chandhiok, Learned Senior counsel for Defendant No. 1, in the course of arguments, has stated that no reli...

Prem Kumar James Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)679; 2000(53)DRJ671

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner presented the writ petition on 4.3.1998. On 6.3.1998 an order was passed by this court. There was a L.P.A. by the petitioner. That was withdrawn. Later on, the petitioner filed an application for amendment introducing necessary averments in respect of his case of mala fides. In the amended writ petition, he has come forward with the following reliefs:-'(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Chennai as illegal, unconstitutional and vocative of petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14,15, & 16 of the Constitution; (b) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order of transfer dated 15.12.1997 issued by the respondents; (c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the transfer order dated 15.12.1997; (d) issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from ...

Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. Vs. Kailash Devi Khanna and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)834

ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The present application for the passing of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. has been filed in a suit for permanent injunction. The prayers contained in the application is that the Defendants, its agents, employees, servants and/or anybody else acting on their behalf be injuncted from interfering in any manner in the peaceful use, enjoyment and possession of the Plaintiff in the land comprising Khasra No. 576/1 Min, Village Kilokri, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi which is the subject matter of the suit.2. In the Plaint it is stated that the Plaintiff is a Public Limited Company which has been leased 6 Bighas 14 bids was in Khasra No. 576/1 Min, of the land in village Kilokri across Yamuna River linking the Ring Road to the Dadri, Mehrauli Road, Express Highway in Sector 15-A, NOIDA for the construction of the Delhi NOIDA Toll Bridge. It is averred that the project is in public interest. It is alleged that the Defendant has no right, ti...

Subhash Chand Aggarwal Vs. Murli Manohar Lal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)891; AIR2000Delhi357; 2000(53)DRJ307

ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1. The controversy in this appeal filed under the provisions of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is rather restricted. 2. The facts which are not in dispute and as found by both the Courts below are that Rama Rani and her son had filed an eviction petition against Respondent No. 1 (since deceased) and his sub-tenant L.D. Bhargava (since deceased). Respondents No. 1(i) to 1(v) are the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of L.D. Bhargava. 3. The eviction petition was filed claiming eviction of the Respondents under the provisions of Clauses (b), (d) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The Courts below were of the view that no case of subletting under Clause (b) had been made out by the eviction petitioners nor did they make out any ground for eviction under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. Consequently, the only gro...

Surjit Rani Vs. Govind Ram

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002ACJ369; 85(2000)DLT687; 2000(54)DRJ469

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 20.5.1994 awarding a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards compensation for the disability suffered by the appellant in the accident with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. The appellant met with an accident and she suffered a serious fracture and incurred permanent disability. She claimed Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation on the ground of permanent disability. She also claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for her treatment and that was granted by the Tribunal. 3. Having held that the appellant suffered permanent disability, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal had also awarded another sum of Rs. 30,000/- for having undergone pain, suffering and mental agony. 4. In appeal, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards permanent disability and she also claimed interest from the date of the accident. 5. The Tribu...