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.
Shri Naraindas R. Israni Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT238; 2003(66)DRJ794
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) are directed against an award dated 5.1.1994 by which the Arbitrator upheld certain claims of petitioner against the respondent-objector.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the objection petition, briefly stated, are that the claimant-petitioner had entered into an agreement No. 8EE/V/76-77 with respondent-objector in regard to the construction of a Higher Secondary School at Seema Puri, Delhi. In view of the arbitration Clause, as contained in Clause 25 of the Agreement, the disputes between the parties were referred to the sole Arbitrator who entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties and examining the material placed before him made the impugned award dated 5.1.1994.3. The claimant-petitioner prays for making the Award Rule of the Court whereas the respondent-objector by its objection petition pleads that under claim No. 3 the petitione...
Food Corporation of India Worker's Union Vs. Umesh Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT390; 2003(66)DRJ597; [2003(96)FLR937]; (2003)IILLJ123Del; 2003(1)SLJ162(Delhi)
S. Mukerjee, J.IAs No. 3512/00, 3513/00,3842/00 & 6368/00 by Deft. No. 1 1. There are four applications which arise for consideration. Three applications which arise for consideration. Three applications are filed by the plaintiff seeking ad-interim stay orders and the fourth is the application preferred by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that proceedings have been instituted (subsequently) in the Courts at Calcutta.2. The factual background to be considered for the purposes of disposal of these two applications, fall in a narrow compass.3. The defendant No.1 has been allegedly expelled from the membership of the plaintiff trade-union, vide resolution of the Executive Committee of the said Union, dated 13.11.1999.4. The said resolution, it is stated, has been passed under the Constitution of the Trade Union, and in particular, Clause 15 thereof (at page 76 of the documents file of this case) which Clause 15 stipulates as under:Clause 15. Disciplinary proceduresA...
Swaran Kanta Seth and ors. Vs. Vijay Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC70; 101(2002)DLT396; 2003(66)DRJ67
A.K. Sikri, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the judgment dated 20th May, 1987 passed by Sh. S.M. Gupta, Judge, MACT in Suit No. 157/80. That suit was filed by the appellants herein, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Om Prakash Seth. Sh. Om Prakash Seth died in an accident and by the aforementioned suit, the appellants had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 2,08,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. The appellants are not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, and thereforee, have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation.2. The deceased was an Advocate who died in a road accident. On 25th April, 1977, at about 5.50 PM the deceased was going from his residence to his office on his two-wheeler scooter bearing No. DHE-7005 whic...
Shri David Johnson Vs. Givo Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR409(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT355; 2003(66)DRJ368
S. Mukerjee, J.1. These are objections by the petitioner ex-employee praying for setting aside a part of the arbitral award dated 11.1.2000, as passed by Shri J.P. Sharma, Sole Arbitrator.2. The background of facts, to the extent necessary for appreciating the challenge to the arbitral award, is that the petitioner joined the employment of the respondent in the capacity of the 'Chief Modalist', drawing in those times, a fairly huge salary of Rs. 37,216/- per month.3. The petitioner's case is that he was illegally suspended w.e.f. 18.12.96, and then illegally dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.8.98 and that he was not paid his salary from December 1996 onwards, despite repeated demands.4. The respondent had preferred a counter claim on the ground of breach of non-completion of agreed tenure of service as stipulated by the agreement of training dated 25.10.94, pursuant to which, the respondent claims, that the petitioner was obliged to serve for a minimum period of 7 years, failing which h...
Vijay Kumar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi210; 101(2002)DLT385; 2003(66)DRJ364
S. Mukherjee, J.1. This is a probate petition in relation to the Will dated 31.12.89 stated to have been executed by the deceased Swatantar Kumar, s/o late Shri Jai Prakash, r/o Ghaziabad (U.P), who is stated to have died on 2.3.90 at Delhi.2. This case was originally filed before the Court of District Judge, Delhi sometime in the year, 1991. During the pendency of the proceedings before the said Court, the petitioners moved an application pointing out that the properties included certain properties in the State of UP, which are valued more than Rs. 10,000/- and thereforee in terms of Section 273(b) of the Indian Succession Act, the Court of District Judge at Delhi did not have the jurisdiction to grant probate which would have effect outside Delhi.3. Vide order dated 2 the 6.4.91, probate petition was returned to the petitioner by the District Judge for being presented before this Court and on such presentation, has been registered in this Court as Probate Case No. 2/92.4. The petitio...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)538
ORDER1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the order of the Judicial Member, dt. 26th Feb., 1999, we are of the view that substantial questions of law do arise from the order of the Tribunal.2. Admit.3. The following questions of law are framed for adjudication :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the format of question No. 2, framed by the two Members while making reference to the Third Member under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the Third Member was justified in going into the merits of the case ?' 2. 'If answer to the first question is in the negative, whether in the facts and inthe circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the additionmade by the AO ?' . It is clarified that question No. 2 is being formulated only with a view to safeguard the interest of Revenue.4. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sethia Foods
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT395TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the present appeal the Revenue wants to club the clearances of M/s. Sethia Foods with the clearances of M/s.Sethia Sweet Products as both the Units belongs to one person. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the Revenue failed to establish that both the factories belongs to one manufacturer.3. The contention of the Revenue is that both the units are using the same brand name and belongs MILAN group of Industries. Therefore, their clearances which clubbed for calculating the Central Excise duty.4. We find that the show cause notice was issued only to Sethia Foods Limited. No show cause notice was issued to M/s. Sethia Sweet Products for clubbing their clearances with M/s. Sethia Foods. Principles of natural justice requires that assessee should be put to notice regarding their commission or omission for violating the provisions of Central Excise Act or Rules. In t...
C.V. Steels Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC586
1. Arguing the stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty Shri J.S. Agarwal, Ld. Counsel submits that the Departmental Authorities have confirmed the demand on the basis of sales tax forms and movement registers maintained at the commercial tax barrier. Ld.Counsel submits that quantity of goods computed on the basis of sales tax forms and movement registers and those cleared under GPIs was presumed by the authorities as clandestinely removed. He submits that since the case of the Department was based on sales tax forms and movement registers maintained at the commercial taxes checkpost, the applicant requested for copies of documents which were not supplied, therefore, there was denial of natural justice. Ld. Counsel submits that the cross examination of drivers and sales tax staff was also refused. This led further to violation of the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel submits that there was inspection of documents allowed to them but the documents were so vo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raghunath International Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC479
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 29.9.2000 vide which he has dropped the duty demand partly against the respondents.2. The proceedings were taken up against the respondents on the strength of show cause notice dated 13.6.95 and corrigendum dated 23.10.96 alleging that they were engaged in the manufacture of SIR brand of Pan Masala, Guthka and Mouth Freshner and they evaded the duty of Rs. 32,86,565 for the period 1.10.94 to 13.2.95. The goods/raw materials confiscated from the factory premises at the time of surprise raid were also proposed to be confiscated, in that show cause notice.Penal action under Rule 209 A was also proposed to be taken against the noticees 2 to 4 (who are not party in the present appeal) 3. The respondents contested the correctness of that show cause notice.They averred that no proper physical verification of the goods were taken and the seizure of the goods f...
Monnet Ispat Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC188
2. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the items listed below were eligible as capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57-Q during the period May, 1994 to November 1995:7. CR Coils 8. HR Sheets 9. G.C. Sheets(all made of iron and steel) 3. The appellants were manufacturing sponge iron and MS ingots. For the manufacture of the former product, they were using a Rotary Kiln while for the manufacture of the latter, they were using an Induction Furnace. The appellants took modvat credit on all the above items claiming the same to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Department, by show-cause notice, proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that the items were not eligible capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57-Q. In respect of Transformer (11 kV), the Department maintained that since transformers of voltage 75 kV and above were specifically brought within the coverage of capital goods under Clause (d) of the Explanation to Rule 57-Q(1), w.e.f. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »