Delhi Court October 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.
Kalyan Agro Industries Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC197
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 11.4.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner.2. The factory premises of the appellant was visited by the Central Excise officers on 21.6.97. The unaccounted stock of steel ingots and runners & risers lying in the factory premises was seized. On verification of raw material 22.600 MT of scrap was found short and that fact was admitted by Shri Raj Kumar, partner of the appellant firm. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,634 with penalty of Rs. 25,000 and also ordered confiscation of the seized goods with option to get the same redeem on deposit of Rs. 16,325. That order of the adjudicating authority had been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The Ld. Counsel has not contested the impugned order on merits. He has prayed for the reduction in the redemption fine and the penalty on the ground that...
Laxmi Metal Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT415TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. wire shelves and crisper baskets and were claiming the classification under heading 7326.20 of Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued on 31-7-95 for re-classifying the goods, in question, under heading 8418 of the Central Excise Tariff and also demanding duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification & demand as proposed in the show cause notice. Appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for deciding the claim of the appellants under Notification No. 75/87-C.E. The adjudicating authority held that as the appellants were availing the benefit of Modvat credit, the benefit of Notification No. 75/87 is not available to them. Appellants filed an appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of not...
Dinesh Pouches Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC195
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 18.1.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The facts are not much in dispute. The factory premises of the appellants were visited by the Central Excise officers, where they are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala and Gutka. The shortage of raw material i.e. menthol of 158.900 kg. of Perfumery compound weighing 103.65 kg. was detected. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,849, imposed penalty of equal amount and disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 82,943 and further imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellants. The authority imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants and of Rs. 5,000 on the Director of the Company. That order of the adjudicating authority had been modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) by setting aside the personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the Company.3. The validity of the impugned order on merits has not been challenged before me. The counsel h...
Jaidev S/O Shri Ganesh Lal Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT234
Madan B. Lokur, J.1.The Appellant, in appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, challenges the correctness of a judgment and order dated 14th December, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions.The facts 2. The Appellant is said to be a graduate and a qualified Stenographer. Sometime in June/July, 1996 he allied for the post of a stenographer/typist with the Electronic Media Production Center (EMPC for short) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter called IGNOU). He was duly selected and joined the EMPC as a Junior Assistant cum Typist on 8th July, 1996. He says that he was not given any appointment letter but worked on daily wages. he continued working as a Junior Assistant cum Typist or a Stenographer, initially on daily wages and later, on a short-term contract basis, till 15th June, 1998 when the last contract came to an end. Even thereafter he continued working in the same post since he was expecting an extension of the ...
Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT4; 2003(66)DRJ300
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), petitioner has prayed 'for taking the necessary measure' and for appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of respondents, on the ground that despite request dated 10th January, 2001, they have failed to appoint the Arbitrator. First respondent has filed reply opposing the prayer inter-alia pleading that by letter dated 2.9.2002, they have nominated their Arbitrator.2. Facts necessary for disposal of the petition are: that petitioner filed the above petition pleading therein that they are contractors engaged in the construction industry for several years. First respondent is a trust established by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development. Second respondent was the construction management agency of first respondent. They called tenders for construction of Kalanidhi Kalakosha for Indi...
Dharmapal Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ15; 2003(86)ECC203
Usha Mehra, J.1. Dharampal Verma has assailed the order of his detention dated 24th August, 2001 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called PIT NDPS Act). The said order was served on the petitioner on 31st August, 2001 while he was confined in Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.2. The impugned order has been assailed, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (1) the copies of the documents were not supplied in Hindi though demanded; (2) it amounts to double detention. (3) there were suppression of material facts and non-supply of documents,3. In order to appreciate the challenge, we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. The petitioner was apprehended on 1st May, 2001. Subsequently vide detention order dated 24th August, 2001 he was detained under PIT NDPS Act. The impugned detention order was passed with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession and transportation of narcotic d...
State Vs. Sunil Puri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT227; 2003(66)DRJ254
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Vide order dated 7.10.2002, respondents were directed to present in person in view of seriousness of matter but today none is present.2. This is a petition for cancellation of bail of the respondents. The allegations against the respondents are that they had committed gang-rape of a foreigner who was a Uzbekistani National known as Ms. Lola Tenchevo when she visited India as a tourist. She was given beating while being raped by the respondents. Her head was banged against the wall and her hairs were pulled up. The case was registered on the complaint of First Secretary/Counselor of Embassy of Uzbekistan after he conversed with the prosecutrix in Russian language and transcribed in English language to the I.O. The respondents first approached learned A.S.J. for bail. The application for bail was dismissed vide order dated 13.5.2000.3. They moved another bail application during the vacation before Vacation Sessions Judge and procured the bail without mentioning th...
Sudesh Kumar, Constable Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ321
Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. This writ petition impugns the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, O.A. No. 835/2000 dated March 2, 2001 whereby the application of the petitioner challenging his termination from service stands rejected. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:-2. The petitioner was a Constable in the Delhi Police. He proceeded on casual leave which expired on March 8, 1994. After availing the casual leave the petitioner was required to joint duty on March 9, 1994, but he absented himself and was consequently marked absent vide D.D. No. 56B of Police Station Greater Kailash. Not only the petitioner did not join duty on March 9, 1994, he remained absent for a period of about three years w.e.f. March, 9, 1994 to March 5, 1997. Since the petitioner remained absent disciplinary proceedings were imitated against him. On march 5, 1997, the petitioner resumed duty and participated in the departmental proceedings. The Enquiry Officer on ...
Usha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2229; 101(2002)DLT286; 2003(66)DRJ477; 2003(85)ECC603
USHA MEHRA, J. 1. Petitioner Ms. Usha wife of Shri Ram Vijay Singh, resident of A-186, Amit Vihar, Bheta Hazipur, Ghaziabad, U.P. was apprehended on 30.4.2001 and from her search one kg. of heroin was recovered. Pursuance to that seizure of one kg. of heroin her statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) was recorded on 30.4.2001. On the basis of her statement her residential premises was also searched where from 2 Kgs. of heroin was recovered beside a sum of Rs. 49,000/-. Her statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was again recorded on 1.5.2001 wherein the admitted the recovery of three Kg. of heroin from her. She stated that Dharam Pal, co-detenu and his wife Premvati had supplied to her two, half-half Kg. packets on 30.4.2001. She was to deliver the same to one Suresh who had paid her the amount of Rs. 49,000/- so recovered from her residence. She identified photographs of Dharam Pal and his wife Premvati and subsequently...
Ram Gopal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3362; 2003(66)DRJ685
Usha Mehra, J.1. On 30th April, 2001 at about 10.05 A.M. one Ms. Usha was coming to the Railway Crossing from Nand Nagri side when she was apprehended because there was information with the respondent that she was carrying heroin. From her search by the officials of the Narcotic Control Bureau (in shirt NCB) one kg. of Heroin was recovered which was packed in white polythene bag. She was served with legal notice to appear on 30.4.2001 at 1900 hours in the office of the NCB, there her statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropics Substance Act. (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) was recorded. She admitted the recovery and also the fact that heroin was supplied to her by one Dharam Pal and his wife Premvati. Her residential premises bearing No. A-186, Amit Vihar, Bheta Hazipur, Ghazhiabad, U.P., was also searched where from NCB officials recovered two double transparent polythene bags containing two kg. of heroin beside Indian currency amounting to Rs. 49,000/...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »