Delhi Court July 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 3 of about 277 results (0.021 seconds)Devidayal Aluminium Indus. (P) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT114TriDel
1. Under show cause notice dated 23-12-1997 issued to M/s Devidayal Aluminium Indus. (P) Ltd., it was alleged by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Ghaziabad, that the noticees had wrongly taken and utilized Modvat credit of Rs. 19,691/- during July, 1997 to November, 1997 in respect of mild steel twisted bars, shapes and sections of iron & steel, and mild steel angles (hereinafter referred to as the 'inputs'), under Rule 57-S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'). These inputs were used in the fabrication of skid rails, skid tubes and stands. These skid rails, skid tubes and stands were fabricated for holding the material and pushing the same through the furnace, for slab heating and annealing processes etc. during the course of manufacture of brass strips/foils etc. Following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vivek Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 156 (T), the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Saxena and R.S. Sahdev Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)111; 87(2000)DLT282
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. Challenge in these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 18th December, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners. Though the petitioners have filed separate petitions, the common features in these petitions, which alone are relevant for dealing with the question involved therein can be culled out from the petition filed by the petitioner S.P.Saxena. 2. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner S.P.Saxena, Scientist 'C' in defense Electronics Application Laboratory, Dehradun for contravening the provision of Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from the charge No.2. As regards the charge No.1, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner's indirect involvement in the trade and business was ...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Chawal Vs. S.M. Agarwal, Special Judge and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2116
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ.1. Order passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 81/81 dated 25.2.1982 is the subject matter of challenge. According to petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' also), the order contained a direction to the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet which is impermissible. 2. Background facts in a nut-shell, as presented by the prosecution, are as follows:- Accused while working as an Upper Division Clerk in office of the Land Development Officer, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi allegedly accepted bribe for getting mutation work done in respect of a property in House No. 4/1, Subhash Nagar. Dr. Om Parkash Chandna of Subhash Nagar in his capacity as General Attorney-cum-owner of the said house had applied to Land and Development Officer for sale permission in July 1978. Accused visited doctor's clinic on 22nd February 1979 and gave him two copies of the sale permission. He had also brought the original file of the property, and demanded a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Ayub Ali Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 86(2000)DLT869
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. These are the objections to the award dated 28th August, 1995 delivered by the Arbitrator, Mr. I.V. Nainani, who had been appointed as sole arbitrator by the Chief Engineer PWD Zone-I, New Delhi on 27th January, 1994. Sixteen claims, 2 additional claims and one counter claim were referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication. The petitioner's claim is that every claim was set out by the Arbitrator but he completely omitted to even refer to or adjudicate claim No. 10. It is also stated by the petitioner/objector that in contrast there are several claims such as claim No. 5, claim No. 6, claim No.8 and claim No.12 which have been discussed and rejected by the arbitrator by giving a nil award qua these claims. He submits that thus the award has failed to even notice claim No.10 entitling him to seek the setting aside of the award at least qua claim No.10 and remission thereof for redetermination. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Hiroo Khushalani and anr. Vs. Baker Hughes Ltd., Uk and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR177(Delhi)
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July, 1998 passed by learned single Judge of this Court, granting interim mandatory injunction in favor of respondents (plaintiffs), directing the second appellant (defendant No. 2), to stop using the word 'Baker' in its corporate name and to approach the Registrar of Companies, for deletion of the word 'Baker' from its corporate name, within two months. 2. Facts in brief are: that the respondents (hereinafter, the plaintiffs), filed a suit seeking decree for permanent injunction and damages against the appellants (hereinafter, the defendants), alleging therein that the first plaintiff, M/s. Baker Hughes Limited (formerly-M/s. Baker International Limited, U.K), was a subsidiary of the second plaintiff-M/s. Baker Hughes Incorporated, USA; the plaintiffs and their subsidiary companies have been doing business and using the trade name 'Baker'. They enjoyed reputation for possessing technology and producing oil ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Arora Vs. Domino's Pizza India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(3)ARBLR390(Delhi); 86(2000)DLT891; 2000(5)DRJ90
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by a Franchisee of the respondent-M/s Domino's Pizza India Ltd., who are the Master Franchisee of the parent company, Domino's Pizza International Incorporate Ltd. based at USA. based at USA. The petitioner has contended that the Franchisee Agreement required from him considerable financial input of about Rs.70 lacs apart from the valuable site and the superstructure that the petitioner already owned, in order to set up the Domino's franchise at Gurgaon. 2. The petitioner submits that the store was opened on 13.9.98. The principal terms of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in so far as they are relevant are that the franchise was for a period of ten years, renewable for a further period of 10 years on terms agreeable mutually. Upfront franchise fee of Rs.5 lacs was to be paid by the petitioner besides the payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Balwinder Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1515; 2001(73)ECC682
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned ASJ dated 15.9.1999 and 21.9.1999 respectively in the Sessions Case No. 26/98. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under: 2. According to the prosecution on 15.4.1998 at A. B. Gate in the departure hall, Palam Airport the appellant was intercepted by ASI Dinesh Prashad (who was on routine frisking duty), when the appellant was about to board Sahara Airlines flight for Patna. 3. On search, five polythene packets containing opium were recovered from the right sock worn by the appellant. The total weight of the optimum was 175 gms. The samples were taken out from each polythene packet. From packets Nos.1, 2 and 3, 2 gms. each was drawn as samples whereas from packets Nos. 4 & 5, samples of 5 gms. were drawn. The balance opium and sample parcels were first duly sealed in separate polythene packets and thereafter in two respec...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Singhal and Others Vs. Manali Singhal and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(2000)DMC732
ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal against the order passed on 20.10.1998 by learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of three applications (A.1126/97, IA.2364 and IA.2635 of 1998) in pending suit (S.No. 2358 of 1997). 2. Appellant No. 1 is the son of appellants No.2 and 3, who respectively are the father and the mother of appellant No.1. Respondent No.1 is the wife of appellant No.1. Respondent No.2 is his daughter. On 28.10.1997 the plaintiff/respondents filed a suit against the defendants/appellants claiming the following reliefs:- '(a) a decree against the defendant for payment of Rs.9,60,000 on account of arrears of maintenance, vacation expenses and school fees along with interest @ 22% per annum from due dates till payment. (b) a decree in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally directing the defendants to specifically perform the said Agreement dated 4.11.1994 marked Annexure- A annexed hereto tog...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. JaIn Plastic Moulders and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR2000Delhi421; 2000(56)DRJ535
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs. 8,78,306.40 p. It is alleged that defendant No.1 is the proprietorship concern of Mr. S.K. Jain. He approached the Bank for grant of credit facilities and an advance of Rs.1,96,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank for the purchase of the machinery. The loan amount along with interest @ 13.5% per annum was agreed to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs. 4,100/- and last 48th Installment of Rs. 3,300/-. The cost of machinery amounting to Rs.1,96,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the suppliers M/s.Guru Ram Das General Industries, Mayapuri, Delhi at the instance of the defendant no.1 towards the cost of the machinery. Defendants No. 2 and 3 guaranteed the repayment of the loan. It is further alleged that Defendant no.2 had mortgaged his immovable property bearing House No. 700-C/43, Shambu Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi by depositing the title deeds creating security for repayment of ultimate balance in thei...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT396TriDel
1. The respondents are manufacturers of cycle and moped chains. While cycle chains are exempt from duty, moped chains are not. The respondents took Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs used for the manufacture of moped chains. But moped chains are exported while cycle chains are cleared for home consumption. The credit accumulated in respect of inputs utilised for the manufacture of the exported moped chains is utilised for payment of duty on scrap generated from the process of manufactured of cycle chains.2. The Modvat credit taken as above by the respondents during various periods in 1995 and 1996 were disallowed by the adjudicating authority.But the lower appellate authority allowed the credits by relying on the Tribunal's decision vide Final order No. A/986/97-NB, dated 23-10-1997 [since reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 362]. The present appeals are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The only ground stated by the Appellant/Revenue in these appeals is that the Depar...
Tag this Judgment!