Delhi Court November 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.
Futura Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC375
1. The appellants are a 100% Export-Oriented Undertaking (EOU) manufacturing Polyester Chips and PET Preforms falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period February 2000 to January, 2001, [hereinafter referred to as the period of demand (POD)] they cleared on payment of duty certain quantities of the said products to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) on the strength of the permission granted by the Development Commissioner.In making the payment of duty, the appellants, purporting to act in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 (as it stood during the POD), calculated the amount of duty in accordance with the procedure laid down in the C.B.E.C. Circular F. No.512/91/93-Cus.VI, dated 18-5-94. The Department objected to this calculation and, by show cause notice dated 1-3-2001, directed the appellants to show cause why differential amount of Rs. 1,20,51,806/- should not be paid on the goods cleared into D...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neelkanth Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT154TriDel
1. In this Appeal, filed by Revenue, issue involved is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 is available in respect of Churi Korma.2. Shri Atul Dixit, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Neelkanth Polymers, a hundred per cent Export Oriented Undertaking, manufacture 'Guar Gum Powder' from guar' seeds; that during the said process, a byproduct namely 'Churi Korma' is also obtained; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 1/2001, dated 24-7-2001 denied the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E. on the ground that Churi Korma, being a by-product is also a finished product which is being sold by the Respondents in the market and the proviso to Notification No. 8/97-C.E. is attracted; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, under the impugned Order, set aside the Adjudication Order holding that the benefit of Notification would be available to the Respondents so long their finished product, i.e., Guar Gum Powder is not chargeable ...
Smt. Sneh Lata Mathur Vs. Shri Brij Raj Bahadur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi259; 2003(66)DRJ763
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for injunction directing the defendants to permit the plaintiff to occupy and use the portion referred to as House No. II in the site plan attached with the plaint in respect of Suit property No. 14, Jamuna Road, Civil Lines Delhi.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff is a widow aged about 87 years. The defendant No. 1 is her brother, defendants No. 2 and 3 are her sisters. Defendant No. 4 is the daughter of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 is the husband of defendant No. 4. According to the plaintiff the suit property was inherited by her father Sardar Bahadur in the course of a partition with his brothers and after the death of her father and mother the suit property has developed upon the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 in equal shares. They, thereforee, are co-owner...
Pearl Agencies Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ507; (2003)ILLJ1024Del
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the orders dated 4.2.1998, passed by the Appellate Committee and order dated 12.10.2001 by the Second Appellate Committee, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.2. Petitioner had taken the plea before the Appellate Committee as well as the second Appellate Committee that it was unable to fulfill its quota on account of labour strike. It is urged that this amounted to force majeure condition and the petitioner was, thereforee, entitled to relief without having the forfeiture of its Letter of Undertaking (LUT).3. Mr. Maitri, learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission submitted that the Second Appellate Committee, has placed reliance on a letter dated 27.3.1998, of the Labour Commissioner. Mr. Maitri submits that the said letter does not 'belong to it'. By this, he means that the letter does not pertain to the exporter. Learned counsel submits that it is true that the strike and the labour problem ...
Shri Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Shri Vinod Mehta,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT774; 2003(66)DRJ183
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This suit for the recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 10,05,500/- and mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff, an IPS Officer, against the defendants who are the Chief Editor, Printer Publisher, Staff Reporter and the owner of the newspaper 'The Pioneer'.2. The defendants were appearing in the suit and had filed their written statement also. However, on account of non-appearance, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 31.8.1999. In his ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff has filed his own affidavit and the affidavit of Shri M.B. Kaushal.3. The averments as contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a 1996 Batch officer of Indian Police Service. The defendant NO. 1 is the Chief Editor of the newspaper 'The Pioneer', the defendant No. 2 is its Printer/Publisher, the defendant No. 3 is its owner and the defendant No. 4 is the Staff Reporter. It may be mentioned here itself that defendant No. 4 has not been named and has been sued only in the name of Staff ...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Amarpali Mercantile Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)854
ORDERPhool Singh, J.M.:This appeal, preferred by the revenue, is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30-5-1997, relating to assessment year 1990-91. The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 90,132 imposed under section 271(l)(c) ignoring the material fact that the assessed had tried to conceal its income with the interest receivable.'2. Relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that assessed, a private limited company, earning income by way of interest on loans and advances filed return for assessment year 1990-91 at an income of Rs. 71,530. During assessment proceedings the assessing officer noted that assessed had shown the income from interest on receipt basis while assessed being company was supposed to follow mercantile system of accounting and interest income was to be calculated on accrual basis. Accordingly, the ass...
Udit Sehgal Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ124
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The question arising for consideration in this petition is whether an applicant is to be confined to the 'category' under which he/she applies for admission or due to subsequent events, a change in category as sought can be permitted, prior to the closure of the admission. 2. The facts in brief are:- (i) Mr. Udit Sehgal a student with good academic credentials having secured 93% marks in the 12th class appeared in the competitive entrance examination, for admission to B.E. Course of the University of Delhi, for the academic session 2002-03. Petitioner applied in the 'General Category' vide his application dated 22.3.2002. On 3.5.2002 he fell from a running bus and sustained injuries, resulting in dis-ability to him. A certificate dated 11.6.2002, has been issued by the Department of ENT, Safdarjung Hospital, certifying that petitioner is suffering from Bilaterial Sensineural hearing loss as per the audiogram done on 8.6.2002. A hearing loss of 50 db in both the ea...
Anand Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1057; 101(2002)DLT297
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This petition seeks setting aside of order dated 31.11.98 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused who was arrayed in column number 2 by presumably invoking the provisions of Section 139 Cr.PC. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners were arrayed in column No. 2 in the charge sheet submitted under Section 173 CrPC. It means that the police did not find sufficient material emanating from the investigation for trial of the petitioner as accused. It appears that the learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the petitioner under the misconceived notion that he was taking the cognizance under Section 190 of the CrPC. 3. Section 190 of the CrPC empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence upon receiving the complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon the police report on such facts or upon information received from any person or upon his knowledge that such offence has been committed. 4. In the instant case, th...
Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR353(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Vide NIT dated 14.12.2001 respondent No. 1 i.e. the Government of India, Ministry of defense through the Director General, Project Sea Bird invited bids for pre-qualification for the construction of Ship Lift Civil Works for the Project Sea Bird of the Indian Navy at the Karwar Port situated in Karnataka. Four parties submitted their tenders which included the petitioner, respondent 2 and 3 as well as M/s. AFCONS Infrastructure Ltd.. Pre-bid meeting was convened on 2nd and 3rd July, 2002 which was attended by all the four bidders. Many points and queries raised by the bidders were clarified in this meeting. Minutes thereof were also recorded. Last date for submitting the tenders was 20.9.2002. The tenders were to be submitted before 1100 hrs on that date and were to be opened by the respondent No. 1 at 1130 hrs on the same day. As already pointed out above, aforesaid four parties submitted their bids which were opened at scheduled time in alphabetical order. Tender of ...
Padmini Polymers Ltd. Vs. Unit Trust of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC382; 2003CriLJ1053; 101(2002)DLT376; [2003]42SCL36(Delhi)
J.D. Kapoor, J. Crl.A. Nos. 421 and 288 of 2002. 1. Both the petitions shall stand decided through this common order as these petitions arise from the same order which is dated 18.12.2001.2. Petitioners are the directors of M/s Padmini Technologies Ltd. Through this petition they have challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 whereby they were summoned as accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act').3. Admittedly the petitioner company M/s Polymers Technologies Ltd. issued two cheques bearing Nos. 247869 dated 25.06.2001 for Rs. 60 lakhs and 247870 dated 27.06.2001 for Rs. 65 Lakhs drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi in favor of the respondent for valuable consideration and in discharge of their liability legally recoverable from them. On presentation the said cheques were dishonoured. The factum of dishonoured cheques was brought to the notice of the petitioner vide letter dated 5.7.2001 sent on...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »