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.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Chawla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ141
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of the preliminary issue raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit, in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act').2. Facts in brief are: that the plaintiff [Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (for short 'MTNL')] instituted the suit pleading therein that on 21st September, 1989, telephone No.236415 was provided to Om Prakash Chawla, (first defendant), at shop No. 872-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi with STD facility. The plaintiff used to issue bills for actual use of telephone recorded in the associated meter. It is pleaded that after adjustments bills for Rs.4,67,887/- remained payable. The defendants failed to make payment of the aforesaid bills, despite reminders. Consequently, the telephone was disconnected on 19th October, 1992, on account of non-payment of bills. During the course of investigation it was found that the telephone was installed in the name of first defendant and was b...
Residents Welfare Association [Registered] Vs. Delhi Development Autho ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT469
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The appellant association filed writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 2375/2002 stating that an area measuring 1.5 acres situate in Block A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, has been allotted to the third respondent for the purpose of running a middle school. According to the writ petition, this area of 1.5 acres is part of a park which has been developed by the M.C.D. and was illegally allotted to respondent No. 3. The association prayed for the following relief in the writ petition:-(i) issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the order of allotment of the 1.5 acres land out of this green park to respondent No. 3 - school vide allotment No. F18(52)96-12-846 dt. 01.03.2002; (ii) Any other writ, direction or order deemed fit be passed; (iii) Award the costs.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director (Lands), D.D.A., it is stated that land measuring 1.5 acres is earmarked for a primary school in the lay o...
S.P.L. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT313TriDel
2. This matter has come up before us in the second round of litigation.In the earliest round, the appeals filed by the parties were against an order passed by the Commissioner confirming a demand of duty of over Rs. 47 lakhs against the assessee and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs under Rule 173Q (a) read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Those appeals were allowed by way of remand. In the remand order, this Bench directed the Commissioner to re-consider the main issue in the case having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Warangal and Ors. v. Deluxe Bar and Ors. [2001 (43) RLT 131 (SC)]. In the remanded proceedings, the Commissioner passed an order confirming against the assessee, demand of duty to the same extent as above and imposing on them a penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, apart from imposing penalties on the co-appellants under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The pres...
Cce Vs. Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(106)LC280Tri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd. were bearing brand name of another persons making them ineligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents nor there was any request for adjourned in-spite of notice.We, further, observe that when the matter was posted for hearing on the last occasion on 22.7.2002, none has appeared on respondents' behalf.We also observe that the respondents have filed under their letter dated 5.9.2002 Cross Objection for consideration by the Tribunal. In view of this we take up the Appeal for disposal after hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, and perusing the records.3. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufactured clutche plates, clutche cover assemblies and pressure plates which are embossed with symbol and...
Satnam Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC481
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Satnam Overseas Ltd., is whether their product 'Rice & Spice' is eligible to excise duty.2. Ms. Reena Khair, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a star trading house, are engaged mainly in export of Basmati Rice; that from 1995 onwards, they also started producing and selling a product known as "Rice & Spice" (Ready Mix) under the brand name "Super Kohinoor"; that the impugned product is prepared by mixing raw rice, de-hydrated vegetables and spices which are packed in pouches and sold in the domestic market; that the Additional Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 13/99, dated 17-3-99, demanded duty of excise and imposed penalty holding that the impugned product is a distinct preparation manufactured by under going certain processes which amounts to manufacture; that the Additional Commissioner also classified the product in question under sub-heading No. 2108.99 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Ac...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Suitings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT286TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, dated 15-6-2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed the order-in-original dated 7-4-2000 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The respondent's refund claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 31-3-2000. But the same was ordered to be adjusted against the duty demand confirmed against the another assessee M/s. Modern Syntex (I) Ltd., Alwar on the ground that appellant is a unit of said company.The Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order of the Assistant Commissioner by holding as under :- "I have gone through the case records. I find that there is a lot of merit in the submissions made by the appellants. Appropriation of the refund claim amount sanctioned against an outstanding demand recovery of which has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan even prior to issue of the impugned order is totally...
Jct Limited Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT303
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Since a very short point is involved and the matter brooks no delay, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.3. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order, dated 23 May 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1.15 Crores in three Installments of Rs. 40 Lacs each, as a condition for stay of realisation of demand created against the petitioner and for disposal of its appeal on out of turn basis. The Tribunal has also directed the petitioner not to alienate or dispose of any of its immovable properties till the final disposal of the appeal.4. The background facts, giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner, a public limited company, is primarily engaged in the manufacturing and selling of textiles, cotton, nylon, synthetic filament yarn et...
Reserve Bank of India and Crb Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Crb Capital Mark ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas157(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT107
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. I have heard the parties at length. Mr. Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator has opposed the release of the property to the Applicant on the grounds that accounts of the CRB Capital Markets Ltd. have yet not been finalised; that there is a possibility that the Applicant is a subsidiary of the CRB Capital Markets Ltd. and hence would be liable to be wound-up along with the Respondent-company-CRB Capital Markets Ltd.; that there is further possibility that the Applicant was a conduit for CRB Capital Markets Ltd., and, thereforee, the Applicants assets ought not to be released; and that the share-holdings of the Applicant has not been disclosed, and since the Applicant is the party with knowledge of these facts, an adverse inference will be drawn against them. Mr. Batra, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant states that a Report is already available. Meanwhile, the matter has been pending since 1997 and the present application since 1998...
United Electrical Company P. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT146
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. Since a very short point is involved, with the consent of counsel for the parties we take up the matter for final disposal.3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice, dated 30th April 2002, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) by the Income-tax Officer, respondent No. 3 herein, seeking to re-open the assessment of the petitioner company for the assessment year 1996-97.4. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of electrical goods. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 1996-97 on 30 November 1996, declaring an income of Rs. 9,26,867/-. The return of income was accompanied by the statement of assessable income, various other documents and annexures, including the statutory tax audit report and the list of loans taken during the relevant previous year. One of the loans, for Rs. 7,40,000/-, raised by the petitioner was from a con...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surjan Singh,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)178CTR(Del)547; 101(2002)DLT21; [2003]260ITR351(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. In these ten references, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) the following question for our opinion:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, capital gains arising on transfer of agricultural lands in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi is chargeable to tax?2. Since in all the references an identical question has been referred, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. As the format of the question itself suggests, the issue arising for consideration is whether the agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat constitutes a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act and exigible to capital gain taxed on its transfer.4. The question posed being purely legal, it is unnecessary to state the facts of each of the cases, except to note that all the references pertain to the assessment yea...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »