Delhi Court September 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.
Global Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT825TriDel
1. Shri Kapil Vaish, ld. CA submits that a mistake has crept in, in the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 180-81/2000-NB, dated 01.03.2000 - [2000 (119) E.L.T. 611 (Tribunal)]. He submits that this order of the Tribunal disposed of 2 appeals No. E/1230/97-NB and E/1323/97-NB. He submits that in para 7, the Tribunal has rejected their claim on the ground that the permission required under Rule 57T was not granted to the applicant. He submits that the applicant had filed an application before the Asstt. Commissioner who was the competent authority under Rule 57T to grant such permission. He submits that a copy of the letter was in the records and also that at the time of disposal of the case by the Commissioner a copy of the letter seeking permission of the Asstt.Commissioner was filed and was in the records. He submits that since an application was submitted, the Tribunal should have taken cognizance of this letter and should have extended the benefit of Modvat credit on the items in dispute...
Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT268TriDel
1. The facts in this case are that M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation, Baroda imported Melamine and endorsed the Bill of Entry to their Zonal Office at Bombay which issued the invoice under Rule 57GG.The invoice was issued to M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. The Kirti Nagar, New Delhi office issued the invoice under Rule 57GG to the appellants on the strength of which they availed the Modvat credit. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-IV, Noida vide her Order dated 28-10-1997 disallowed the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 28,101.60 to the appellants on the ground that Bombay Zonal Office of the supplier - M/s. GSFC was not registered with the Central Excise department. She observed that under Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.) such persons as intend to issue modvatable invoices, were required to be registered. If they were not registered upto 31-12-1994, the invoices issued by them were not to be considered a valid document u...
Arvind Kumar and ors. Vs. M.T.N.L. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)79; 88(2000)DLT504
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his repeated entreaties the respondents failed to raise the bill for his telephone number 742-0195. Petitioner was suddenly confronted, in June 2000, with a bill for the sum of Rs. 69.064.00, which included late payment charge of Rs. 2,000/-. It is not disputed before me that the delay in billing had emanated out of the respondents' own failure to feed the necessary data in the computer. In fact, the nothings on the file reveal that one of the causes for the delay was that one of the employees, who was dealing with the case, had been transferred. The situation for the petitioner further aggravated when, as per the petitioner, he met senior officials of the respondent including the DGM (Finance), for grant of installments. As per the petitioner, his requests were not heeded to. In these circumstances, Mr. B.D. Sharma, DGM (Finance...
Ajay Raj Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ616; 2000(55)DRJ643
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. This petition has been preferred by the Commissioner of Police (in short C.P.), Delhi, whereby he has raised substantial question of law pertaining to the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate to transfer the case from one investigating agency to another investigating agency out of his own jurisdiction. Secondly whether by doing so he exceeded his jurisdiction and authority under law? 2. In order to appreciate the points raised, we may have a quick glance to the facts relevant for the determination of these questions. 3. Sharifa Shekh appeared in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 15th October,1999 and stated that she was victim of rape in the house where she was working as a maid servant. Learned Additional Public Prosecu torn (in short APP) opposed giving her custody to her previous employer, even sending to Nari Niketan was opposed. However, since her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to be recorded she was ordered to...
Vijay Singh @ Vijay Pahalwan Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ261; 2000(57)DRJ529
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Vijay Singh Vijay Pahalwan has sought removal of his name from Surveillance Register and opening of History Sheet by the SHO, Police Station Vasant Kunj (respondent No.4 herein). 2. The facts of the case are that petitioner had been residing at Village Kishangarh, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. He is a wrestler. He participated in various international events in different countries. His father was a Head Constable in Delhi Police. According to petitioner his suffering started when the accomplices and coconspirators in the assassination of his father veilding great influence in the police circle tried to involve the petitioner in false petty criminal cases in the village. Respondent No.4, SHO of Police Station Vasant Kunj filed a report to Deputy Commissioner of Police, SouthWest District regarding the conduct of the petitioner which according to the petitioner, the DCP accepted without verification. He issued a ste...
B.K. Sondhi Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ421; 2000(57)DRJ387
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Shri B.K.Sondhi by this petition has sought for the quashing of the FIR No.480/99 registered under Section 420/468/471, IPC at Police Station Mehrauli, New Delhi. Quashing has been sought primarily on the ground that parties have entered into a compromise. The terms of compromise were filed in Suit No.1693/98 instituted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner regarding the purchase of the farm house belonging to the petitioner and his son. The said suit was filed in the High Court of Delhi, registered as Suit No.1693/98 titled as 'Tarun Pal Singh v. Jai Sondhi & Ors.' The cause of action pleaded in the suit was identical to the complaint lodged by the respondent No. 2 which culminated into the registration of FIR No.480/99. During the pendency of that suit, the petitioner and the respondent filed complaints against each other. On the basis of their respective complaints two FIRs were registered. On the complaint of the petitioner FIR No.112/99 was registered and...
Jaiswal Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT400TriDel
1. In this appeal the issue relates to the availability of benefit of exemption Notification No. 450/86-C.E. dated 17-11-1986 on S.S. hot patti/patta falling under sub-heading 7220.10 of the Tariff manufactured from S.S. Flats, to the appellants. The appellants claimed benefit of this notification in their classification lists effective from 25.07.1991 and 01.03.1992. The Assistant Collector through order-in-original dated 28.01.1994 disallowed the benefit of this notification on the ground that patti/patta had been manufactured by the appellants out of S.S. flats which were not duty paid and approved the classification lists of the appellants accordingly. The plea of the appellants that the ingots out of which the S.S. flats were got manufactured by them for using as inputs for manufacture of patti/patta, were duty paid and they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 450/86 prescribing nil rate of duty, was not accepted by the Assistant Collector.2. The order-in-original da...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT782TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the inclusion of the Clearing and Forwarding (C and F) Charges and Bank Charges in the assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Central Excises Act, 1944.2. The Asstt. Collector through the impugned order dated 14-10-1996 allowed the exclusion both these charges from the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents. His order-in-original was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through order-in-appeal dated 6-3-2000.3. The Revenue has come-up in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Revenue has challenged the validity of the impugned order on the ground that Clearing and Forwarding Charges and Bank Charges both are includible in the assessable value and that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside on that account.4. This very ground has been reiterated by Shri P.K. Jain, SDR before us.5. On t...
Misha Vadera and anr. Vs. Ravi Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1032
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. In this application under Order 39 Rule 4, read with Section 151 of the CPC the first defendant Ravi Kumar has prayed for setting aside/modification of the exparte ad interim order dated 4.5.94, whereby he was restrained from alienating or parting with possession or creating any third party interest in commercial space/show room, measuring 1106 sq. feet, on the first floor of the building known as 'Hansalaya' situated at 15, Barak hamba Road, New Delhi (hereinafter the suit property). 2. Brief facts are: Plaintiffs filed a suit against first defendant, owner of the suit property, second defendant property dealer and third defendant (partnership concern of the plaintiff no. 1/Builder) for specific performance of agreement to sell in relation to the suit property on terms contained in the receipt dated October 28, 1993 executed by the first defendant which reads as under:- R E C E I P T Received the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac Only) in CASH from Mr. Mish...
Amrit Lal Kohli and anr. Vs. Harbans Lal Kohli and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1139; AIR2001Delhi24
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The plaintiffs in this suit are seeking a decree of declaration that the trust deed dated 22nd January, 1966 in respect of their 2/5th share in plot no.32, Block - E measuring 250 sq. yds situated at New Delhi South Extension, Part II, New Delhi (for short the suit property) has extinguished. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration alleging therein that on 13th January, 1965 by a registered sale deed the plaintiffs purchased the suit property and thereafter raised construction on it with their own funds; the ground floor was let out to the State Bank of India while part of it is in occupation of the defendants 3 and 4; plaintiffs had three sons namely, Sanjay Kohli, Sanjeev Kohli and Sandeep Kohli. Sanjay Kohli died unmarried on 12.2.1991; the plaintiff was keeping indifferent health and was busy with other important affairs and it was thought fit to create a trust in respect of the suit property for its proper management and preservation and according...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »