Delhi Court January 2002 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.
Meera Dewan Vs. Shakuntala Dewan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)519; AIR2002Delhi321; 96(2002)DLT853
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. It is not necessary to recapitulate the facts in detail as mentioned in the plaint or averred in the written statement. The issue involved in these two applications is legal issue and only those facts which have bearing on this issue would be stated. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The declaration is claimed, inter alia, to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the First Floor of property bearing No. 73, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') by virtue of the Mutual and Companion Wills of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant herein firstly executed on 14th July, 1983 and thereafter on 24th July, 1986 and further that the defendant is not entitled to sell, transfer or alienate the suit property in any manner whatsoever. 3. The father of the plaintiff and the defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff, executed Wills dated 14th July, 1983. These are two separ...
Smt. Gunjan Mahajan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1099; 97(2002)DLT255; I(2002)DMC631; 2002(62)DRJ323
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of respondent No. 2 in the case FIR No. 780/2001, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh.2. Prosecution allegations in brief are that petitioner was married to Sachin Mahajan, respondent No. 2, on 19th January, 1999. In September, 2000, they started living in a separate flat at Vasant Kunj. However, on account of some differences, they could not pull on together and on the basis of report lodged by petitioner, above-noted case was registered against respondent No. 2 and his other relations. Respondent No. 2 was arrested and some articles of Istridhan were recovered. Thereafter he was sent to judicial custody. By orders dated 22nd September, 2001, respondent No. 2 was released on bail by the Addl.Sessions Judge observing that petitioner was no longer required for investigation. This order has been challenged by the complainant.3. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned counsel for...
Rajan Mahajan and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1057; 2002CriLJ2433; 97(2002)DLT253; I(2002)DMC629; 2002(62)DRJ316
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2002, passed by the court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, Delhi, cancelling the bail of the petitioners in the case FIR No. 780/2001, under Sections 406/498-A, IPC, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. 2. Prosecution allegation in brief are that younger brother of the petitioners, Sachin Mahajan, was married with Ms. Gunjan (respondent No. 2) on 19th November, 1999. In September, 2000, Gunjan and her husband, Sachin Mahajan, shifted to D-8/8077, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. They could not pull on even there. On account of differences above noted case was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2 in which petitioners were also involved. Petitioners were arrested on 19th September, 2001. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate found that the allegations of torture against the petitioners were vague and that there was no likelihood of their fleeing from justice and admitted ...
Mrs. Sukerma Rani Kapoor Vs. Om Prakash Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)860
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff herein is the mother of the defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 is the wife and the defendants 3 and 4 are children of the defendant no.1. This Suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction and consequential relief under Section 6 of the Special Relief Act. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that she is the owner of the Suit premises namely, B-8, Anand Niketan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Suit property, for short) which is a 2-1/2 storeyed house and that the defendant-1 have usurped and possessed the first floor of the Suit property. Prayer made in the Suit which is filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as mentioned above, is for passing a decree of mandatory injunction, removing/evicting the defendants from the Suit premises and restoring the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff. The decree for permanent injunction is also prayed for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, etc. ...
Sriram Kaiyaun Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(102)LC460Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants had taken Modvat credit of CVD of Rs. 1,58,469.50 on imported inputs in their RG-23A Part-II on 12.10.1999, At that time they had not filed any declaration under Rule 57G of the Central iixcise Rules. Such a declaration was filed only on 28.10,1999. But by that time there was a delay of 16 days. Therefore, on 29.10.1999, the appellants had submitted an application for condonation of delay. The assessee did not utilise the credit taken. The department, by show-cause notice dated 1,2.2000, proposed to disallow the above credit under Rule 571 as also to impose penalty on the party under Rule 173Q for the alleged contravention of Rule 57G. In reply, the assessee stated that they had already filed a declaration and, therefore, there was no reason for denial of the Modvat credit on the ground of absence of declaration. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, who adjudicated the dispute, disallowed the Modvat credit, and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule ...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. H.C.L. Infosystems
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT485TriDel
1. The brief facts in this case are that during the course of investigation, it was found that the respondents were charging extra amount over and above the assessable value declared by them and no duty was paid on such extra realisation. Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut demanding the duty of Rs. 3,82,18,326/- on such extra realization and a duty of Rs. 1,01,31,035/- on account of incorrect determination of the assessable value of the goods cleared on stock transfer during the period from January, 92 to December, 93. Consequent to this show cause notice, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut vide his Order dated 24-5-96 appropriated an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores already paid/debited by the party and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs on them.2. The party filed an appeal before the CEGAT and the CEGAT vide its Stay Order dated 29-11-96 directed the party to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 75 lakhs. The party deposited ...
Adarsh Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT488TriDel
1. This application arises in an appeal filed by the applicants challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) denying them deemed Modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-8-97 on certain quantity of inputs supplied to them by manufacturers covered by the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This application prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts covered by the impugned order.2. There is no representation for the applicants today in spite of notice. The respondent is represented by Id. JDR. As this matter has stood adjourned from time to time at the instance of the applicants. I am not inclined to grant any further adjournment in this matter, nor is there any written request for adjournment on record either.3. Ld. JDR, Shri R.C. Sankhla submits that the deemed Modvat credit in question has been denied to the assessce on the ground that the duty liability in respect...
i.K. International Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT185TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. I.K. International, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 56/98-Cus., dated 1-8-98 is available in respect of onion imported by them and whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act is im-posable on them.2. Shri H.S. Mew, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue involved is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons v. C.C., Amritsar - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 753 (T). We also heard Ms. Ananaya Ray, learned SDK.3. We observe from the impugned order that the appellants had imported onion from Pakistan and availed of exemption from payment of Special Additional Duty of Customs in terms of Notification No. 56/98-Cus. The Commissioner under the impugned orders, denied the benefit of the said notification as no sales tax was payable on like goods. The issue is no more res Integra as the Tribunal in the case of Tarsem Singh Multani & Sons, supra, has held that Notification No. 56/98 ...
J.S. Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT417TriDel
1. M/s. J.S. Metals (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal against Adjudicating Order No. 11/98, dated 12-1-99 under which the Commissioner of Central Excise has denied the benefit of Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act on the ground that the Appellants had opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules.2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Appellants. In fact, the notice of hearing sent to the Appellants had been received back from the postal authorities. Further, Shri Amit Awasthi, learned Advocate, had requested to withdraw himself from this case. We also find that this matter is being adjourned since long. In view of this we take up the matter for final disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned D.R. Learned D.R.submitted that this appeal was earlier heard by the Tribunal, and Final Order No. A/588/99-NB, dated 24-3-99 was passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to...
Veekay Fibres Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC400
1. From the communication received from the official Liquidator it is seen that the company was ordered to be wound up vide order dated 8.1.2002 by the company Judge in a proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Since no application has been filed in these proceedings by the official Liquidator for continuance of these appeals by the Official Liquidator within the time prescribed, as contemplated by Rule 22 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982, the appeal stands abated.2. Send a copy of this order to the Official Liquidator appointed by the company Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of winding up of the appellant company....
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »