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.
Virender Kumar Goel Vs. the Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)876; 2002(61)DRJ355A; 2002(1)SLJ491(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul. J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 7.2.97 passed by respondent No. 3 suspending the petitioner in view of the allegations against the petitioner of leakage of question papers. After the memorandum to hold the enquiry was issued on 11.4.97, respondents 2 and 3 addressed letter dated 10.3.1998 to respondent No. 1 requesting to provide a nominee to constitute the disciplinary authority committee as per rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. Though this was the correct procedure. Learned counsel for the respondent states that respondent No. 1 filed to nominate any person and as a consequence thereof the enquiry proceedings did not continue. Learned counsel for the respondent has further drawn my attention to a letter dated 1.11.96 addressed by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 admitting to hi...
Shashi Sehgal Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Del)306
By the CourtAdvance copy of this application was given to the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the parties submit that this application may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 12-12-2001, passed in C.W.P. No. 5654/2001 titled M/s. Express Towers (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2002) 173 CTR (Delhi) 447. The prayer seems to be reasonable.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. We direct the Appropriate Authority to hand over the possession of the subject property and all the title deeds, tenancy agreement, etc., and execute conveyance in favor of the petitioner on petitioner's depositing Rs. 24,00,000 with the Appropriate Authority within six weeks. The petitioner/applicant would be under an obligation to pay other amounts, if any, which had been paid by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to give possession within two weeks of petitioner's depositing the aforesaid amount.No further directions are necessary in this...
Bhatia Film Sales (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC384
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. S/10-69/91 V(B), dated 5-2-91 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai. Under the impugned order a consignment imported by the appellant and declared to be containing camera parts was confiscated with option to the appellant fo redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In addition increase of the assessable value of the goods under import was ordered.2. The above mentioned actions were taken on the finding that the goods under import were actually not camera parts as declared in the import documents but were 2950 cameras imported in SKD condition. The order also took note of the fact that the appellant had carried out a similar import which had been adjudicated under Order No. S/10-260/90 V(B), dated 7-12-90. The impugned order concluded that cameras being consumers goods, were not eligible for import without a specific licence a...
Commissioner of Customs, New Vs. Dipak Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT247TriDel
1. The brief facts of this case are as under :- M/s. Dipak Enterprises (Appellant in Appeal No. C/112/2001) filed a Bill of Entry on 22-9-2000 for clearance of a consignment of Dry Batteries, branded 'SONIC'; imported from M/s. Pacific International Traders, Hong Kong (In short, "M/s. PACIFIC"). At about the same time, the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, Bombay received a communication from M/s.SONIC Battery Co. Ltd., Hong Kong to the effect that the latter was the owner of the trade mark "SONIC" in respect of battery for Hong Kong and the whole of Chinese Mainland and further that M/s. PACIFIC were manufacturing and selling SONIC brand battery. Acting upon this communication, the Customs authorities framed a case of falsification of trade mark against M/s. Dipak Enterprises and, by show cause notice, proposed to confiscate the above consignment under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as also to impose penalty on them under Section 112(a) of the Act. The proposal was con...
Haryana Cable Industry Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT220TriDel
l. Through these stay applications, the appellant No. 1, M/s. Haryana Cable Industry has prayed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,54,42,723.43 and equal amount of penalty besides personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-. Similarly, the appellant No. 2, M/s.Deepak Cable Company has sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 89,38,564.08 with equal amount of penalty and personal penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. The learned Counsel for both the appellants while arguing the stay applications has contended that there is no tangible evidence on record to prove the very manufacture of insulated wires and cables, during the years 95 to 98 by the appellants much less the clearance of the same without payment of duty by them. They had no machinery even for carrying out the manufacture of insulated wires and cables. Rather they were only manufacturing domestic wires and cables. The Counsel has also pointed out that fair opportunity for producing defen...
Bmp Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT735TriDel
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton and man-made fabrics falling under Chapters 52,54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were working under the erstwhile Compounded Levy Scheme up to 28-2-2001. They wanted to work under the modified Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZNA from 1-5-2001.Accordingly, they filed an application with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise on 18-5-2001 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 96ZNA for permission to avail the provisions of the Scheme with effect from 1-5-2001. The application was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that, as on 1-5-2001, the appellants were carrying out heat-setting/drying with the aid of an open air stenter in their factory. In other words, the Commissioner held that, by virtue of Explanation (ii) to Rule 96ZNA, the provisions of the Scheme were not applicable to the appellants. The present appeal is against this decision of the Commissioner.3. Ld. Advocate Shri P.M. Dav...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Perfect Stoneware Pipes
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC543
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the respondents.Respondents made a request for adjournment. As we find that the issue is already covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 535 (Guj.), the request for adjournment is declined.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that Coal ash (cinder) is not a manufactured excisable product liable to Central Excise duty. Learned Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shaw Wallace Gelatines Ltd. relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not accepted by the Revenue and Revenue has decided to file appeal before the Hon'...
Harishankar Raikwad Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT471TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 19-9-97, the Customs Officers of Nautanwa intercepted two person from a Roadways bus at Moila. On enquiry they disclosed their identity as S/Shri Harishankar Raikwad and Ravi Kumar Verma both resident of Jhansi. Both the persons were brought to the Customs Office, Nautanwa and they defecated from their rectums 7 gold pieces each of foreign origin weighing 1633 grams.The gold was totally valued at Rs. 7,28,000/- and was of 24 carat purity. Shri Ravi Kumar Verma in his statement dated 19-7-97 stated that he had brought the said gold from Nepal and same was handed over to one Shri Kallu Kamaria alias Kailash Babu Agarwal who had given the dollars. He stated that he was involved in the smuggling of gold for the commission of Rs. 1,000/-. In a separate statement recorded from Shri Harishankar Raikwad, he confirmed the disclosures made by Shri Ravi Kumar Verma. Accordingly, the proceedings were initi-tated and all the three named persons were issue...
Coates of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT201TriDel
1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. The applicants are registered dealers of excisable goods. On 2-/-99 a consignment of such goods being transported in a tempo under cover of invoice dated 30-6-99 were intercepted by officers of Central Excise. The authorised signatory of the appellant-company stated to the officers under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act that he was not able to explain why the goods were being transported on that day on the strength of an invoice raised two days before as also why the goods were being transported in a different vehicle than the one mentioned in the invoice. The officers seized the goods along with the vehicle and took further proceedings against the applicants, which culminated in a show cause notice, which, inter alia, proposed to impose penalty on the party under Rule 173Q.The proposal was conte...
Prem Saluja Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)536; 2002(1)ARBLR557(Delhi); 96(2002)DLT628; 2002(62)DRJ11
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. On filing the petition under Section 14 of theArbitration Act, 1940 for making the award dated 25th September, 1992 rule of the court, notice was issued to respondent-DDA. The award has been challenged by way of objection filed through I.A.1913/98.2. It is settled proposition that award should not be interferred unless it suffers from the vice of perversity. The court does not sit in appeal and as such, the court should not re-appreciate, re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence or material on which the Arbitrator has based the findings, unless it is found that the Arbitrator has completely ignored the materialdocuments which if taken into consideration could have tilted the award in favor of the aggrieved party. The sanctity of the ward should always be preserved unless the Arbitrator has either gone beyond the terms of the agreement or contract or has tied himself to such a legal proposition which when examined is found to be completely unsound. Otherwise, even erroneo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »