Delhi Court March 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 4 of about 221 results (0.020 seconds)Needle Industries (India) Limited and Another Vs. Virumal Parveen Kuma ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)995; 85(2000)DLT513
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. Plaintiff No.2, a company under the existing laws of Germany, claims to have established international business in the field of manufacturing and marketing snap fasteners, needles of all kinds, hooks and eyelets. Plaintiff No.1 is stated to be a subsidiary of plaintiff No.2 and claims to be manufacturers of high quality hand sewing needles, knitting pins, snap fasteners and allied products. Between 1963 to 1981, it is alleged, there existed a license agreement between the plaintiffs inter-se which authorised plaintiff No.1 to manufacture press studs in accordance with the specifications and standards of quality laid down by plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.1 was also authorised to use plaintiff No.2's allegedly world-wide famous mark '555' registered in India for press studs and snap fasteners, etc. in class 26. The trade marks are stated to be still valid and subsisting on the register of trade marks. During the subsistence of the aforesaid licensed use by plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!R.J.S. Studios (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT350TriDel
1. These three appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original dated 27-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs who had ordered the confiscation of their imported goods (musical instruments) with the option to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 3 lakhs and also directed them to pay differential duty of Rs. 6,56,683.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs each on all the appellants, separately, i.e. Co. M/s. R.J.S. Studio (Pvt.) Ltd. Satish Sharma and Rajinder Chaturvedi its Directors.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: 3. The appellant Co. M/s. R.J.S. Studios (P) Ltd. imported musical instruments for which they filed Bill of Entry No. 591961 dated 1-11-1997 for getting the same cleared from the Air Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi. They also appended declaration along with that Bill of Entry regarding the correctness of the contents of the invoices and the documents regarding the valuation of the goods and their...
Tag this Judgment!Gabriel India Limited Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT770TriDel
1. The appellants M/s Gabriel India Limited are manufacturers of thin walled bearings, bushes, washers etc., which are liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. The appellants claimed, inter alia, deduction towards interest on receivables from the sale price for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value for levying Central Excise duty. The claim was on the ground that where there is time lag between the sale of the goods and the receipt of payment, the interest for the period between the sale of the goods and the receipt of the payment is required to be deducted from the amount realised so as to make the assessable value equal to the price at the time of sale of the goods.However, this claim of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that there was no separate interest levied on account of the delay in payment for the goods and that where interest is not separately collected, deduction is not permissible. As against this, the appellants have submitted that deduct...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC660
1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the duty has not so far been quantified while the penalty amount has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order, in our view, it is a fit case where the pre-deposit of the penalty amount must be dispensed with. Accordingly, the stay application of the appellants is allowed.2. With the consent of both the sides we proceed to decide the appeal itself also.3. The appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 5th February 1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which she had modified the order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner regarding the duty amount and the penalty imposed on the partners of the appellants but confirmed the penalty amount on the firm. According to the Revenue the appellants manufactured steel furniture w.e.f. 12-9-1991 and sold the same to Super Bazar. The partners of the firm admmitted these facts. It also revealed that the goods sold...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Farida Dar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)494; 91(2001)DLT531; 2001(59)DRJ94
ORDERR.C. Chopra, J:1. This Revision Petition under Section 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 20th November, 200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi for framing charges against the petitioner under Section 120B read with Section 436 124A IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petition arises out of a case commonly known as 'Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Cast'.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are that on 21.5.1996 at about 6.45 p.m., there was a bomb blast in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi resulting in the death of 14 persons and injuries to 38 besides extensive damage to immovable and movable property. An FIR was lodged and investigations were taken up. 3. The first lead for the investigators came from the phone calls received by the media on 21.5.1996 purportedly from Jammu Kashmir Islamic Front, taking responsibility for the bomb blast. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Khanna Vs. M/S. Cosmos Tanneries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)610; 86(2000)DLT548
ORDERVikramajit Sen. J.1. This Suit No.1214 of 1997, for the recovery of Rs.12,40,000/-, came up before Court for the first time on 30.5.1997. While issuing summons/notice, the Defendant was directed to furnish security to the sum of Rs. 12.50 lacs. This security was never furnished. On 9.7.1998, the Defendant having been served by publication, failed to put in any appearance, and was thereforee proceeded ex-parte. Significantly, although application I.A. No. 11,162/99, to set aside the ex-parte orders, was filed on behalf of the Defendant by its Director, Shri Arun Goel, this application was not prosecuted further. The Plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavits on that date. 2. In the plaint it has been averred, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and her husband were shareholders of the Defendant Company. It has been alleged that on 6th September, 1993 an Agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff's group and the Defendant and its other shareholders, whereby the P...
Tag this Judgment!Cambridge Woollen Mills Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT687TriDel
1. In this appeal the Order- in -Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 8-12-1994 confirming duty demand of Rs. 30,21,150.09 from the appellants and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on them is under challenge. Brief facts are : - the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of yarn. They are also, according to the appellants, engaged in the trading of yarn as well as woollen jerseys.They supply goods to the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D), Government of India, against orders of various indentors. By show cause nonce dated 28-10-1988, the Department alleged that the appellants had mis-declared the composition of the yarn with intent to evade the Central Excise duty. It was alleged that during the period September, 1983 to July, 1988 the appellants had supplied 1,42,846.902 Kgs. of woollen worsted yarn to Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjhanpur as detailed in Annexure B and B1 to the notice. It was alleged that the appellants had mi...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)1029; 2001CriLJ1849; 86(2000)DLT15; 2000(54)DRJ30; 2000(2)JCC568
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Delhi Police Act,1978 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted with the purpose to bridge the conflicting relationship between the police and the Magistracy. It was difficult for the police to handle certain law and order problems. To overcome these problems it was felt expedient to provide Police Commissioner system in Delhi. thereforee, the Act was enacted which came in force on 1st day of July,1978. The Bombay Police Act,1951 was the tested testament for the Police Commissioner system. thereforee, number of provisions of the Bombay Police Act,1951 have been incorporated in the Act, thus most of the provisions of the Act and in particular Section 50 and 47 of the Act are analogous to the provisions of the Bombay Police Act,1951. One of the time tested measure to prevent commission of crime is to snap criminal links of certain class of persons with other persons having criminal bent of mind.Section 47 of the Act deals with the removal of persons about to commit o...
Tag this Judgment!Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Mohd. Salim Khatri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)360; 2000CriLJ3165; 85(2000)DLT655; 2000(54)DRJ234; 2000(70)ECC399
ORDERK.S. Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks the setting aside of an order dated 6th May, 1995 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking permission to dispose of nine Honda cars. 2. Application for permission to dispose of nine Honda cars dated 11th July, 1994 was filed alleging that these cars were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in August/September 1992 and have been exhibited in Court on 10th February, 1994. Cars are presently parked in open space at IGI Air Cargo Complex and their condition is deteriorating day by day thereby resulting in depreciation in their value. Out of the nine cars, only three cars have been claimed by Accused No.1. It was prayed that said cars may be permitted to be disposed of on the terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court. 3. Both the accused/respondents contested the application by filing separate replies. In the re...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)537; 85(2000)DLT299; 2000(53)DRJ342
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. In our country, a very large number of extremely poor unfortunate and distressed men, women and children are languishing behind prison bars awaiting for trials in the courts of law for months and years. 2. According to the status report of the Director General of Prisons, filed in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 27.1.2000, most of the undertrial prisoners, presently lodged in Tihar Jails have been charged with the minor offences. Even if ultimately, they are found guilty, would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, or at the most perhaps for a year or two. These unfortunate forgotten specimen of humanity are languishing in jail, deprived of their liberty, for years without even as much as their trials having commenced. As aptly observed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. A.S. Anand in a letter to the Chief Justice, Delhi High Court on 29.11.1999 that 'It is neither just nor fair that persons involved in petty offences should suffer inca...
Tag this Judgment!