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.
Mrs. Amrita Singh Vs. Brisk Capital Market Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas661(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Petition for winding-up of the RespondentCompany has been filed under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's allegation is that she had placed with the Respondent Company a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two Fixed Deposits, bearing interest at the rate of 14% per annum. These deposits were made on 8.11.1994 and 2.1.1995 and were to respectively mature two years thereafter. In the meanwhile, the Company was notified on 17.6.1997 under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Special Court Act).2. Notice of this petition was issued to the Respondent Company and consequent thereupon a Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Custodian appointed under the Special Courts Act the gravamen of which is that these proceedings ought not to continue any further. The Custodian has himself made a Reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.9.1996 in Civ...
Anil Mehta Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC282; 101(2002)DLT96
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal .3. The petitioner has filed the writ petition aggrieved by the non-acceptance of the bid of the petitioner for shop No. 78 situated in LSC, J Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. 4. An advertisement had been issued in the 'Times of India' on 28.3.2000 for auction by the DDA of shops and offices and the petitioner participated in the same on 18.4.2000. The list of successful bidders was displayed on 26.4.2000 containing the name of the petitioner. The earnest money paid by the petitioner was refunded by the respondent without assigning any reasons. The petitioner made a representation against the same on 15.6.2000 and thereafter filed the present writ petition.5. It is not disputed that the earnest money refunded has since been encased by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the r...
Mool Chand Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ378
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the order bearing No. F.1(S-7)/KV/Allot.L&B;/97 dated 10.4.1997 issued in his favor.3. This case has had a chequered history. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through number of documents, which may be briefly noticed:-(i) One Sh. P.S. Oberoi was allotted shop No. 7, Kalyanvas, Delhi. Permission was further given to him to cover the open area behind Shop No. 7 with temporary structure at his own cost for clearing of wheat etc. Sh. P.S. Oberoi was carrying on the business of running of an Atta Chakki. Thereafter, Sh. P.S. Oberoi, entered into a partnership with present petitioner, Sh. Mool Chand Sharma. The intimation of the said partnership was given to the Under Secretary (Allotment) PWD and was accepted by the latter. The terms for the same were also communicated...
Amrita Singh Vs. Brisk Capital Market Services Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT772
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This petition for winding-up of the respondent company has been filed under Sections 433(e), 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's allegation is that she had placed with the respondent company a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two Fixed Deposits, bearing interest at the rate of 14% per annum. These deposits were made on 8.11.1994 and 2.1.1995 and were to respectively Nature two years thereafter. In the meanwhile, the company was notified on 17.6.1997 under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as Special Court Act). 2. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent company and consequent there upon a counter affidavit has been filed by the Custodian appointed under the Special Courts Act the gravamen of which is that these proceedings ought not to continue any further. The Custodian has himself made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9.9.1996 in ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ginni Filaments Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT220TriDel
1. In these appeals, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Additional Duty of Excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act is leviable on the goods cleared from a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking to the Domestic Tariff Area or the Additional Duty of Excise is exempted under Notification No. 55/91-C.E., dated 25-7-91.2. Shri Atul Dikshit, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., a 100% E.O.U., manufacture Cotton Yarn and P.V. Synthetic Yarn; that a show cause notice was issued to them for demanding Additional Duty of Excise in respect of clearances effected by them during the month of March, 2000; that the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise under the Adjudication Order No. 169/2000, dated 10-8-2000 confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No. 55/91-C.E.; that however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the Respondents relying upon the decision in the case of ...
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC484
1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes of various sizes falling under Chapter 40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing themselves of the benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs. On 15-8-2000, they were having Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 74,18,165/- in their RG-23A Part-II. On 20-8-2000, they debited an amount of Rs. 1,15,16,826/- towards duty on goods cleared during the period 1-8-2000 to 15-8-2000. The department alleged that the appellants utilized excess Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 40,98,661/- which was not, allegedly, available to them under the provisions of Rule 57AB(1) (b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Therefore, by show-cause notice, the department sought to recover from them a duty amount of Rs. 40,98,661/- towards duty on the clearances for the period 1 to 15 August, 2000 as also to impose on them penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party denied the department's allegations and re...
Raman K. Sawhney Vs. Chairperson, Ndmc and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT546
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice issued by respondent No. 1 Council under Section 72(2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as also the inclusion of the interest factor on security deposit and advance rent beyond a period of ix moths.2. The property in question is flat No. 513, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the rateable value of the same was sought to be enhanced w.e.f. 1.4.1998 in pursuance to the notice under Section 72(2) of the Act. The annual rent was calculated on the basis of the rent and interest factor of 12.5% was charged on the security amount beyond six months rent as also the advance rent not adjusted in the first year. Three different sets of calculations were made for the three assessment years in question starting from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001. This assessment order was passed under Section 72 of the Act on 28.2.2001 and same was assailed by the petitioner be...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mr. P. Chandrasekharan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ528
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for disposal.3. The petitioner corporation has filed the writ petition impugning the order of the appellate authority dated 9.7.1999.4. The only question to be considered is whether respondent was liable to pay house tax from the date of taking over the possession of flat in question constructed by the DDA or from the date when the area was electrified. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the rateable value would be effective from 1.4.1996 instead of 15.5.1995 in view of the fact. that electricity connections were not being provided in the area in question.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 129 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the property will be subjected to tax from the date of its completion or occupation whichever first occurs and since building was complete and possession handed over to the respondent the pr...
Deep International Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC34
1. When this petition for stay came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of, We, therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi dated 2.5.2002. The Shipping Bill Nos. 18158 and 18159 dated 27.7.99 were filed by the appellant for export of 45,000 pairs each of ladies chappals showing the FOB value at Rs. 32,60,862 and Rs. 33,98,063 respectively under claim for DEPB benefit at the rate of 20% at FOB. On examination of the goods it appeared that the declared market value was on the higher side. The export was allowed provisionally after drawal of samples for market enquiry to check the correctness of declared present market value. On market enquiry it was found that the value per pair was only Rs. 15 and Rs. 13 as against the declared value of Rs. 75.51 and Rs. 71. A show cause notice dated 22:10.99 was issued which was followed by a corr...
Rine Machine Tools Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC83
The appellants were, during the material period, engaged in the manufacture of Tractor parts and were availing the benefit of Modvat credit on inputs. In respect of the inputs which they procured from manufacturers working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96-ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 144 read with Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of deemed Modvat credit at the rate of 12% of invoice price of such inputs in terms of Notification No. 58/97-CE(NT) dated 30.8.97. During April to September, 1998, they took such credit on the inputs supplied under cover of invoices issued by the following Input manufacturers: 2. The Original Authority disallowed the deemed credit taken on the inputs supplied by the above parties during April to September 1998 on the ground that the appellants, did not fulfil the conditions of Notification No. 58/97-CE i.e. the input manufacturers had not fully discharged the duty liability in respect o...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »