Delhi Court March 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.
Shrutkeerti Mukerji Vs. the State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)544; 86(2000)DLT116
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This probate petition pertains to the Estate of late Shri Prakash Chand Chopra, son of late Shri Badri Prasad Chopra, who expired on 20th December, 1995 at Dehradun. Late Shri Prakash Chand Chopra is stated to have been a permanent resident of B-104, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, where he resided with his nephew, respondent No.2. He has executed a Will on 22nd May, 1986, and registered it with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Mussoori on 21st May, 1986. A copy of the Will has been filed with the petition and marked Annexure-B. Late Shri Prakash Chand Chopra is stated to have been a bachelor. He has left behind only one legal heir, namely petitioner No.2 who is his deceased sister's son. At the time of his death none of his other relatives were alive. Notice was served. Only Respondent No.2 has appeared but has not contested the petition. General citation was also published in the Statesmen Delhi Edition, dated 6th September, 1997. 2. The Will has been attested b...
Amitabh Adhar and Another Vs. Nct of Delhi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4772; 85(2000)DLT415; II(2000)DMC55; 2000(56)DRJ220
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing framing the impugned charges under Sections 498A/406/506/509/34 IPC against the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision are that the complainant Ms. Bharti Saran was married to the accused Sudhanshu Saran on 2nd June, 1994. The married life of Sudhanshu Saran and Ms. Bharti Saran, according to the prosecution, lacked connubial felicity and was marked by constant bickerings and quarrels. The cause for this discord being the perverted sexual behavior of the accused Sudhanshu Saran and the demand of dowry. It is the prosecution case that Sudhanshu Saran was constantly subjecting the complainant Ms. Bharti Saran to corporeal intransigence. The petitioner No.1 is the step brother and the petitioner No. 2 Ms. Bandana Vajpaye is the step sister of the accused Sudhanshu Saran. On 28.1.1995, the complainant Ms. Bharti Sar...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Syntex (i) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT588TriDel
1. The Commissioner has filed the captioned appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Collector holding that "I do not confirm the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,02,468/- on M/s. Modern Syntex (India) Limited, Alwar under Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and I drop further proceedings initiated against the assesssee in the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1994." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessees are engaged in the manufacture of man-made yarn. On perusal of RT12 returns submitted by the respondents, the department observed that the respondents had cleared 12,575.7 Kgs of PV blended yarn to M/s. Modern Suitings Limited without payment of duty. It appears that M/s. Modern Suitings Limited received duty free fibre under Rule 191 BB for exporting man-made fabrics and supplied this fibre to M/s. Modern Syntex (India) Limited, Alwar for manufacture of PV blended yarn. The department alleged that since there was no exemption notification for availing duty ...
Jersy India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT434TriDel
1. These two appeals are on the same issue. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The issue is of classification of knitted cotton fabrics and other knitted fabrics containing elestomeric yarn.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufacture knitted fabrics of yarn and other knitted fabrics containing elestomeric yarn. The assessee claimed that the yarn was classifiable under sub-heading 6002.92 whereas the department had held that the yarn was classifiable under sub-heading 6002.30 3. Shri M. Chandrashekharan, ld Sr. Advocate along with Shri R.Krishnan, ld. Advocate appeared for the appellants who submitted that the test report relied upon in the SCN shows that the fabrics in dispute contain 90.7% of cotton and 9.3% of elestomeric yarn. He submitted that thus cotton predominated in the composition of the knitted fabrics. He, therefore submitted that the principle for classification of this fabric appeared under Note ...
Surinder Kaur and Others Vs. Sardar Rajdev Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)545; AIR2000Delhi306; 85(2000)DLT527; 2000(54)DRJ117
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of is No. 7974/99 moved by the plaintiffs under Order XXXII, Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiffs pray that a medical board be constituted to determine the alleged mental infirmity and incapacity of defendant No. 1 and after being satisfied with medical report a guardian be appointed to represent defendant No. 1 in the case. Reply to the said application has been filed by the defendants. 2. Before noticing the pleadings and the respective contentions of the parties and the submissions made by counsel, it would be appropriate to notice the salient facts and circumstances in which this application has come to be made by the plaintiffs in the present suit. 3. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit inter alias for declaration, permanent injunction etc., seeking to retrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs, from the estate and the building bearing municipal No. 124, Ganja, New Delhi comprising Hotel...
Castrol Limited and anr. Vs. P.K. Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ704
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a Company incorporated in England. Plaintiff No. 2 is a Company incorporated in India. Both the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds etc. Plaintiff No. 1 had commenced its activities in India in the year 1919. Plaintiff No. 2 was set up on 31st May 1979 with the object of processing and marketing high grade automotive and industrial lubricants and speciality products and to take over the entire operations of the Indian Branch of Plaintiff No. 1 in India. On 1st July 1979 Castrol Limited was amalgamated with Indrol Lubricants Specialities Pvt. Ltd. and its name was later on changed to its present name, namely, Castrol India Limited.2. Plaintiff No. 1 has claimed itself to be the registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Castrol' in respect of oils for heating, lighting and lubricating. The mark was regis...
Ashok Mehra Vs. Siddharth Shriram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ451
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of is No. 4087/99. 2. Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:- 'A. Pass a decree for recovery in the sum of Rs.3,26,21,099/- Along with interest @ 24 per annum pendente lite and future in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendants 1 & 2 jointly and Severally. B. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing, Defendants 1 & 2 to continue to pay until the Plaintiffs' 60th birthday i.e. until 11.6.2003, the rent and other charges for the enjoyment and occupation by the Plaintiff of property and premises bearing No.A-218, New Friends Colony, New Delhi to the landlord continuously and uninterruptedly. C. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendants 1 & 2 directing, Commanding and requiring the Defendants 1 & 2 to pay to Tata Finance Ltd.(Defendant No. 3) all outstanding dues in respect of the Cielo car bearing registration No.DL-3CJ 6267 and continue to pay month to month hereafter all d...
Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ675
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The principle question which needs determination in-this case is as to whetherEAN-INDIA is a 'State' or 'another authority' within the meaning of Article 12 ofConstitution of India amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This controversyarose in this petition as the petitioner has challenged the termination of his service byorder dated 30th November, 1998 and respondents have challenged the maintainability of such petition.2. Petitioner was appointed by EAN-INDIA vide its letter dated 13th July, 1997 as Accounts Officer which was later redesignated as Office Manager. He was to be on probation for a period of one year. Clause 2 relating to probation is reproduced below: -'You will be on probation for a period of one year in the first instance which may be extended or curtailed by EAN-INDIA at its discretion. During the initial probation period of one year, your service shall be terminable at any time without assigning any reason and without notice and in the ev...
Freeze King Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]118TAXMAN541(Delhi)
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. At the instance of assessee, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,115 paid as interest along with Installment in respect of plot No. 182/14, Industrial Area, Chandigarh was of capital nature and was not allowable as revenue expenditure ?'2. Dispute relates to assessment year 1976-77. The background facts essentially are as follows : The assessed is a private limited company which was incorporated on 24-6-1966 and carried on the business of manufacture and sale of air-conditioning and refrigeration machinery. Previous year for the assessment year in question ended on 30-6-1975. On an application made by the assessee, Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, by order dated 11-9-1972 allotted a...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC690
1. The Revenue filed this Reference application against the Misc. Order No. M/2/ 99-NB dated 7.1.1999 with the prayer that following question of law be referred to the Hon'ble High Court: Whether the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 6.5 lakhs debited in RG-23C Part-II can be considered as compliance of Tribunal's Stay Order under Section 35F or whether the entire pre-deposit should have been deposited either through RT-6 or debit in PLA account.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. raised a preliminary objection that the Reference application is not maintainable. He submits that as per Section 35G, the reference application lies against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act and the present impugned order is not passed under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. He submits that the impugned Misc. Order vide which the Tribunal accepted the compliance made by the appellant to the Stay order and vacated the order of d...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »