Delhi Court November 2002 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2002 Page 2 of about 228 results (0.020 seconds)Dsa Engineers (Bombay) and ors. Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corp ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ466
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of I.A. 1015/01 under Sections 34 and 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act of 1996') and I.A. 11576/01 under Section 151 CPC filed by the Objector.2. I.A. 10715/01 was filed on 29th October, 2001 alleging that objector has filed objections under Section 34 impugning the award dated 30th June 2001. On receipt of copy of award, Objector filed application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the 'Act of 1940') for getting the award filed in original Along with depositions and documents in court which was contested by Non-objector/claimant. By the order dated 4th October 2001 this application was dismissed. Objector was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the objections within the period of 3 months. It was prayed that by invoking proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 the objections may be allowed to be entertained.3. I.A. 11576/01 was filed in conti...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Dyestuff Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT509; 2003(159)ELT153(Del)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuff and in the manufacturing process uses about two dozen intermediates as raw materials, classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act). On the manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuff the petitioner is liable to pay excise duty under Tariff Item No. 14-D of the First Schedule.2. In exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules), the Central Government, by Notification No. 103/61, exempted synthetic organic dyestuff falling under Tariff Item No. 14-D, manufactured wholly or partly out of the intermediates from the payment of so much duty of excise thereon as was equivalent to the amount of countervailing duty paid on imported intermediates. As a result of the Notification, the manufacturer of synthetic organic dyestuff became entitled to get credit for countervailin...
Tag this Judgment!Health India (Registered) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(1)SLJ51(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The issue raised in this petition which is filed in the nature of public interest litigation relates to the appointment of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'the Institute'). In fact the petitioner has challenged orders dated 21st April, 1999 and 19th June, 2001 vide which the tenure of the respondent NO.3 as Director of the Institute was extended twice. These extensions are challenged by the petitioner alleging that the same are contrary tot he provisions contained in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as Rules and Regulations framed under the said Act. Before we embark upon the controversy which is raised in this petition, it would be apposite to have background material which shall enable us to appreciate the controversy more appropriately.2. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act is a Central enactment which came into existence in the year 1956, with the obje...
Tag this Judgment!Sonik Industries Vs. Amarjeet Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ292; (2003)134PLR12; 2003(26)PTC50(Del)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. Kulwant Singh filed this application under Order 23 Rule 1 and Section 151, CPC, inter alia, alleging that he was one of the partners of plaintiff firm which stands dissolved. Suit was filed by Smt. Charanjit Kaur, another partner of firm without authorisation and/or knowledge or the applicant. Parties to suit are closely related and the applicant, thus, does not want to proceed with the suit. It was prayed that suit may be dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally or in the alternative dismissed.2. Smt. Charanjit Kaur, contested the application by tiling reply. It is alleged that at the time suit was filed the plaintiff firm consisted of two partners. Vide deed of dissolution dated 31st March, 2002 the applicant retired from plaintiff firm and all existing assets and liabilities of the firm including trade mark were taken over by Smt. Charanjit Kaur who is now the proprietor of the business. It is denied that suit was filed without authorisation and/or knowledge of the a...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Khanna Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT445
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The writ petition raises a question as to whether an accommodation which is used as a transit accommodation for the employees of a company is liable for property tax at residential or commercial rates. 2. The petitioner is the owner of property No. 90, Jor Bagh, Delhi and rented out the same to M/s. Glencore India Private Limited with effect from 1.5.1996. The Assessing Authority wide order dated 27.12.1999 assessed the property and included the notional interest on advance rent as part of the report and further held that the property is to be construed as one being used as commercial guest house. On the petitioner impugning the said decision before the Appellate Authority, the said order was set aside by an order dated 12.7.2000 and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority with a direction to deal with the aspect of rate of tax. 3. It is stated in the writ petition that despite the said direction the Assessing Authority did not decide the issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Okhla Factory owners' Association (Regd.) and Anr. Vs. the Govt. of Na ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 108(2002)DLT517
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1.Benevolence in administration is a necessity but this benevolence has to be balanced against the rights of the residents of a town specially when dealing with one commodity which can never increase which is land.2. The validity and legality of the policy of the respondents for removal and relocation of jhuggi dwellers who squat on Government land unauthorisedly and are ultimately allotted parts of land acquired for planned development of Delhi has to be decided in the present proceedings. This became a necessity in view of the fact that the land was being acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for planned development of Delhi at public expense for public purpose. This very land was being utilised to relocate persons who had squatted and trespassed on public land and refused to move from the original place. In order to clear those areas such persons were provided land which had been so acquired.3. In this public interest litigation the problem aro...
Tag this Judgment!Mitsubishi Corpn. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]85ITD414(Delhi)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 201Letter issued by Joint CommissionerCatch Note:On deducting tax at source under section 195A assessed filed Form No. 24--Joint Commissioner issued letter to assessed that on verification of Form No. 24 it is found in order--However, Deputy Commissioner, TDS, reopened assessed's case on ground that the letter issued by Joint Commissioner was not an order--Was not justified--Perusal of letter shows that neither assessed was declared as an assessed in default nor any demand was raised--On the contrary, according to assessed, liability computed by assessed was already paid before issue of such letter--Hence, impugned order of Joint Commissioner cannot be considered as an order under section 201(1).Ratio:Perusal of letter shows that neither assessed was declared as an assessed in default nor any demand was raised--On the contrary, according to the assessed, liability computed by assessed was already paid before issue of such letter--Hence, impugned order of Joint Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Hewlett Packard India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2003]85ITD455(Delhi)
ORDERT.N. Chopra, A.M.This appeal is filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-10-1996 whereby payment of Rs. 70,00,000 made to M/s. Blue Star Limited for elimination of competition has been held to be capital expenditure and hence disallowed for assessment year 1990-91.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessed-company was incorporated on 8-11-1988 and has been engaged in the business of selling, marketing and distribution of various products of Hewlett Packard (hereinafter referred to as 'the HP') in India. The assessed-company is a representative agent of HP products in India in respect of the following products :(a) Test and Measurement Instruments;(b) Computer Systems including work stations;(c) Computer Peripherals, and(d) Parts.Prior to the assessed acting as representative agent of the HP, M/s. Blue Star Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the M/s. BSL') was engaged in the selling/distribution and marketing of various products of HP in ...
Tag this Judgment!Cmi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT197TriDel
1. I allow the stay application and take up the appeal for final disposal.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of insulated wires and cables and are availing the Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs and capital goods. The Range Supdt. of Central Excise issued to them letter No. C.E,-20/2002, dated 24-4-2002, on the basis of an Audit Report, alleging that they had wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,44,199.04. The Supdt.'s letter, further, asked the party to debit the amount in their Cenvat account. Aggrieved by this direction of the Supdt., the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter rejected the appeal as not maintainable. Hence the present appeal.2. Examined the record and heard both sides. Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the Supdt. of Central Excise had issued the direction in his quasi-judicial capacity and hence the direction was appealable under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. He fur...
Tag this Judgment!Steelman Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT263TriDel
1. All these appeals are directed against the same Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh [Order-in-Appeal Nos. 441-443/Ce/CHD-I/01, dated 28-9-2001].Accordingly, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of under this common order.2. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the duty demand after adjusting Modvat credit and duty amount already paid would be only Rs. 71,368/- and accordingly he reduced the penalty imposed by the original authority from Rs. 3,27,209/- to Rs. 71,368/-.3. The appeal of the assessee [Appeal No. E/286/2001-A] contends that the duty demand worked out in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct. It is submitted that even though the clearance of the goods in question was spread over the period from December, 1997 to March, 1998, the same assessable value of Rs. 17,500/- has been adopted for working out the duty payable. The appellant's contention is that the asse...
Tag this Judgment!