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.
Keval Krishan Chadha Vs. A.K. Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)389; 96(2002)DLT198; 2002(62)DRJ39
R.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition raises a short question of law:- 'Is an agreement entered between the parties pursuant to a compromise arrived with the aid of police is not a valid and enforceable agreement and cannot form the basis of a summary suit under the provisions of order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure.?'2. The petitioner herein filed a suit under order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 90,424/- against the respondent on the basis of agreement dated 8th September, 1998, reached between the parties pursuant to compromises/settlement through the cooperation of S.H.O. Police Station I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The learned Civil Judge to whom the suit was made over instead of treating the said suit as a summary suit and taking further proceedings inaccordance with the provisions of order xxxvII CPC, by an order dated 11.5.2000 treated the said suit as an ordinary civil suit and directed the issue of summons for settlement of issues in the ordinary ...
Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. Vs. Jage Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT749; [2002(94)FLR470]; 2003(1)SLJ106(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with continuity of service and full back wages, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside of the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.2. As dispute had arisen between the petitioner/Management and the respondent/workman, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the termination of service of the respondent /workman herein was illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief the workman was entitled to. In the statement of claim filed by the respondent/workman before the Tribunal, it was contended by the respondent/workman that he was appointed as a Bill Clerk-cum-Cashier on August 12, 1966 and thereafter as Assistant Salesman. It was alleged by the respondent/workman that his service was terminated on September 4, 1975 by the then Secr...
Vinod Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. A.P. Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR350(Delhi)
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. Criminal M. (M) Nos. 2792 to 2882 of 1990 have been filed with a prayer to quash the complaint for an offence under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of the complaint does not make out a triable offence and, thereforee, the complaint ought to be quashed.2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the Income-tax Department, I have gone through the complaint. From a bare reading of the complaint it appears that there is a positive averment of the violations of law as also sufficient material to sustain the complaint as has been brought on record. It is not for this court to examine the quantitative or qualitative nature of the material on record at this stage. Suffice it to say that if the complaint discloses a triable offence it must be proceeded with. In the present case, I find that the complaint discloses a triable offence. Conse...
Raj Bahadur @ Raju Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT3; 2002(82)ECC791
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.3.1997, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 52/95, whereby the learned Judge has held the appellant guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and further by a separate order dated 31.3.1997 has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs. one lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year.2. Brief facts of the case as recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge are as follows:'On 10.2.95 at about 3.40 p.m. SI Tarkeshwar Singh was on patrolling duty in Main Bazar, Paharganj. He received a secret information that one Nepali often comes to Diamond Cafe to sell Charas and at that time also he was standing outside the Diamond Cafe waiting for some customer and that he is in possession of Charas which he sells only to foreigners. This information was reduced into writing by SI Tarkeshwar Singh. At about 3...
Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Om Food Products
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC472(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright and passing off. In the suit, the plaintiff has also sought for a decree for delivery of the infringed goods and also for payment of damages, rendition of accounts and profits.2. Summons were issued in the suit. An injunction application was also filed by the plaintiff on perusal of which this Court ordered issuance of an ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the said defendant and its agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly dealing with biscuits under the trade mark '50 50' under the wrapper or under any mark with a wrapper as may be identical to or deceptively similar to the trade mark '50 50'3. Summons having been served on the defendant, the defendant entered appearance and sought for time to file the written statement. However, in spite of opportuni...
Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh Vs. Shivalik Electric Equipment Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT540TriDel
1. Challenge by the Revenue in this appeal is against the common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in order in appeal Nos.1542-43/CE/CHD/2000, dated 30-10-2000. The respondent was supplying ACSR Zebra Conductors to Punjab Electricity Board (PSEB) against purchase order dated 8-7-88. As per a clause of the purchase order, any increase in the price of inputs was to be paid extra by PSEB. On such increase in price of inputs, the respondent raised certain bills and deposited Central Excise duty at the time of issue of the bills. Since PSEB did not make payment of these bills, the respondent applied for refund of the amount of Central Excise duty which was deposited in anticipation of payment by PSEB. The refund claims were rejected by the original authority. The respondent preferred appeals with Commissioner (Appeals) which were allowed. The matter was then taken before this Tribunal. Vide order dated 21-12-98 Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for pass...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Khasa Distillery Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC571
CCE v. Ambalal Sarabhai Industries reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where the assessee claims that the goods were not marketable, the burden is on the Department to prove that the goods were either marketed or was marketable. The burden of marketability has not been discharged by the Department. In view of the above, the orders-in-original are not sustainable and the same are vacated and the appeals allowed".Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have filed the captioned four appeals.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of carbon dioxide Gas, Fusel Oil, Malt and eithyl alcohol (denatured). On the basis of Intelligence Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellant. Enquiries revealed that the respondent is engaged also in the manufacture/propagation of yeast for captive consumption. It was noticed that no accounts were being maintained for yeast consumed i...
M.V. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC393
1. The issue raised in both these appeals is whether the Gold Star brand sports shoes imported by the appellants were eligible to be assessed to Nil rate of additional Customs duty as applicable to goods classifiable under sub-heading 6401.12 of Chapter 64 of Central Excise Tariff. Chapter 64 relates to footwear, gaiters and the like and parts of such articles and heading 64.01 covers foot wear and parts thereof.Sub-heading 6401.12 covers "Footwear of retail price not exceeding Rs. 125/- per pair". The appellants claimed assessment of the shoes in question to additional customs duty under heading 6401.12 at Nil rate of duty, upon a declaration that the retail sale price of the shoe was below Rs. 125/-per pair. The Customs authorities accepted the declaration and assessed the goods accordingly. However, subsequently, proceedings were initiated for recovery of duty under Sub-heading 6401.19 i.e. as "other" footwear. Allegation was also made that the short levy was on account of mis-decl...
Shri Sumant Sood Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC229
1. In view of the order passed by the Larger Bench vide Misc. Order No.87/2001-A Dated 30.10.2001, no further direction has to be given in this matter.2. The Bench vide its Misc. Order No. 53/01-A dated 8.8.2001 took the view that there is no reason to interfere with the enhancement of the value and confiscation of the car ordered by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Thereafter, the bench reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3 lakhs from Rs. 15 lakhs. The question whether the owner of the goods or the person from whose possession or custody goods were seized is liable to pay duty leviable on goods ordered to be redeemed on payment of fine was referred for consideration of the Larger Bench. As mentioned earlier the Larger Bench answered the above question in affirmative following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre . In the light of the above, the appeal stands disposed of subject to the a...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Lucky Plast Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT141TriDel
1. The respondents manufacture PVC Leather Cloth. They also export the excisable goods under bond. They exported these goods vide AR 4 No.1/96-97, dt. 29-6-96 involving central excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,14,000/- They were however issued a show cause notice dated 18-12-96 calling upon them to show cause why the aforesaid amount payable on the said AR 4 should not be recovered from them under Rule 14A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under the said rule. The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vide his order dated 11-7-2000 observed that the party had not produced the proof of export in respect of the aforesaid AR 4. He has observed that in the absence of production of proof of export like Bill of Lading, Shipping Bill and Original copy of AR 4, noticee has not furnished the proof of export as required under the rules. He has accordingly confirmed the duty of Rs. 4,14,000/- and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »