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.
inder Dev Yadav Vs. National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT92; [2002(93)FLR620]
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner by this petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 3.1.2002 in terms whereof the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned the services of the Corporation resulting in loss of lien on the post held by him and the period of absence was directed to be treated as dies-non. The petitioner was transferred on 14.7.2001 and was released from NTPC, Unchahar with direction for joining at Badarpur Thermal Power Station which he failed to do and absented unauthorisedly w.e.f. 16.7.2001. The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench against his transfer. It is an admitted position that pending consideration before Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in C.W. No. 3883/ 2001 transfer orders were not stayed. This petition was finally dismissed on 21.11.2001 after recording dismissal of the writ petition on merits. Learned Judge observed as under...
B.S. Virdi Electric Works Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi318; 2002(2)ARBLR41(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT89; 2002(62)DRJ180
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present proceeding is registered on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 14, 17 & 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2, the Arbitrator to file the original award dt. 4.10.1999 and also for a further direction that on a receipt of the proceedings and the award, the same should be made a rule of the court and a decree be ordered to be drawn in terms thereof. 2. The petitioner herein entered into a work contract with respondent No. 1 for construction of T.V. Studio-cum-Office building at Bhopal. The aforesaid agreement also contains an arbitration Clause being Clause No. 25, which provides that in case of disputes and differences between the parties to the agreement, the same are required to be adjudicated upon in terms of the said arbitration Clause. During execution of the aforesaid work contract, certain disputes arose between the parties and accordingly the petitioner invoked th...
Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defense South Block, ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)619; 97(2002)DLT796; 2002(64)DRJ347
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. The Appellants have preferred this appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and order dated 8th November, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing C.W No.3427/94.3. The deceased husband of Respondent No.1 (and father of the other Respondents) was enrolled in the Army as a Civil Storeman in the Mobile Military Workshop on 2nd December, 1941. He remained in temporary service till 21st March, 1945. He was re-enrolled as a Combatant Hawaldar Storeman under the combatization scheme and continued to serve in the Army till his discharge on 17th June, 1953.4. It appears that during 1953 the deceased was stationed in Jammu & Kashmir and thereafter posted to C.O.D. Delhi. On reaching Delhi, he was asked to join duty in Poona immediately. During his journey he fell sick and on reaching Poona he was diagnosed as suffering from Malaria. He was given medical treatment and examined by the Medical Board on 5...
Softline Media Ltd., Vs. Delhi Transport Corp.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)849
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. All these petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) whereby the petitioners have prayed for ad interim relief. All these petitions involve similar facts and same question of law. They were accordingly heard together and are being disposed of by this common Order.2. In order to appreciate the controversy facts of OMP.185/2001 may be noticed. It is stated in this petition that the respondent - Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DTC, for short), from time to time invites tenders from reputed advertisement companies, firms and concerns, for grant of advertisement rights on the various bus queue shelters under its jurisdiction. In 1997 DTC also devised a scheme whereby it invited tenders for construction of bus queue shelters known as 'Build Operate and Transfer Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as but Scheme, for short). The underlying object of but Sch...
Kuldeep Singh Vs. Oriental Green Environment Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ149
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for an order for winding up of the respondent company M/s Oriental Green Environment Limited having its registered office at 'Oriental Towers', C-50, Community Centre, Naraina, New Delhi 110028.2. According to the averments in the petition, the respondent company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24th February, 1997. One of the main objects of the company was to carry on business of plantation of all types of trees and plants for commercial, domestic, industrial and other purposes and to carry on the business of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, sericulture, tissue-culture, pisciculture, forestry, poultry, fishing, farming and to develop resorts, green houses and other related activities.3. The petitioner is one of the creditors of the respondent company. During the course of the business, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 18,900/-, with the respondent company with buy back facility in respe...
Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT504TriDel
1. The issue involved in these three appeals, arising out of a common Adjudication Order No. 19/21/CE/CHD 11/2001, dated 31-1-2001, is whether the benefit provided under Notification No. 462/86-C.E., dated 9-2-86 is available to the chassis manufactured by M/s. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. 2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, inter alia, manufacture chassis for various types of vehicles, classifiable under Heading 87.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the chassis are supplied by them to the independent body builders who thereafter build the body on the chassis and thereafter the complete bus/vehicle is sold by the Appellants, that Notification No. 462/86-C.E. provides concessional rate of Central Excise duty for "fuel efficient light commercial motor vehicles of pay load not exceeding 4,000 Kilograms and falling within Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff;" that they had sent the base models of the chassis for light commercial vehi...
Kopran Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC341
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Kopran Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 is available to the product imported by them.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 4 Analysers M-644 NA/K/CL and filed Bill of Entry dated 23-4-98 and were assessed to Customs duty @ 20% + 5% + 13%; that subsequently they filed a refund claim claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. (Sri. No. 210 read with List No. 22) (Sri. No. 66) which provides exemption to Blood Gas Analyser, Sodium Potassium Analyser. Auto Analyser for Enzymes, Drug Bio-chemical investigation or combination of two or more of aforesaid; that their refund claim has been rejected under the impugned order on the ground that exemption is not available to the Auto Analyser for Bio-chemical investigation only since the benefit is available to Auto Analyser which does analysts for enzymes drug level and bio-chemical or at lea...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-ii Vs. Nihon Engineering (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT337TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are a 100% EOU.They are permitted to have a customs bonded private warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for which they have been issued an in-bond manufacturing order for the manufacture of goods for export under Section 65. Consequently, the respondents bound themselves for payment of such fees by executing 3-in-1 bond and B.17 (Gen Surety) bond. Accordingly, they were issued a show cause notice dt. 29-6-2000 by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise Division-11, NO1DA in which it is alleged that as per the condition of the bond, they had undertaken to pay the establishment charges and other supervision charges of the staff member that may be hosted or debited to the unit and the same were to be paid in advance for one year at a time within one week after receiving the notice of payment. It is alleged that the party was required to pay the establishment charges for their various manufacturing activities under bond...
Cristopia Energy Systems (i) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex., Indor ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(80)ECC528
1. These are two applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of duty and penalty as under :(1) M/s. Cristopia Energy Rs. 39,90,060/- duty Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 39,90,060/- penalty 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Id. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant No. (1) submitted that they manufactured components of energy storage systems bearing the brand name "CRISTOPIA"; that the demand of duty has been made for the period from January, 1997 to June, 2000 on the ground that they were manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of a foreign Company and accordingly denying them the benefit of SSI Exemption. Ld. Advocate mentioned that for the purpose of stay petition, he is not arguing on the use of brand name; that he will be representing the appeal only on the aspect that the demand is hit by time limit; that the entire demand is based on collaboration agreement entered into by the appellant No. (1) with M/s. Cristopia Energy Systems SA France; that the Central Excise offi...
Pearl Drinks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC396
1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 28/2001, dated 14-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi imposing duty liability of Rs. 10,68,457. The relevant period is from 1-4-95 to 31-10-95.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of aerated water falling under Heading Numbers 22.01 and 22.02 of Chapter 2 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. There was no sale of aerated water to any wholesale buyer at the factory gate of the appellant. They cleared their manufactured product, aerated water, in glass bottles with the help of a conveyer belt after making payment of duty to their only one duty paid godown situate adjacent to the factory. Such duty paid stocks were sent to the customers in lorries. The driver-cum-salesman deliver the goods in market directly to the customers/dealers at a higher price and issues cash memos. Unsold goods and empties are brought back by him to the said duty paid go down.4. The appellant while declaring their who...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »