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.
Shri Jasbir Singh Khanna Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi137
S. Mukerjee, J.1. This petition has originally filed, was in respect of immoveable properties at Mohali and Dehradun and moveable properties in form of fixed deposit, units, shares, debentures and Bank accounts.2. Subsequently the petitioner was able to secure mutation in his favor in relation to the immoveable properties, and in terms of order dated 10th July, 2002, it was recorded that the petitioner is pressing the relief in this probate petition, only in relation to moveable properties in view of the orders passed on is No. 4089/02.3. It is also to be noted that vide order dated 16.8.2001 passed in is No. 2517/01, by Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Sikri, J, in relation to the Dehradun property, upon statement being made that the Group Housing Society has already transferred the said plot in the name of the petitioner, thereupon it had been directed that the probate petition shall now proceed only in respect of Mohali property.4. Thereafter pursuant to the citation and notices published, the resp...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kapoor Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT306TriDel
1. Revenue has filed this Appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner holding that the process undertaken by the assessee in regard to making Chandeliers was a process of manufacture and therefore, duty was payable on Chandeliers.2. Arguing the case for the respondent Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Counsel submits that Revenue has only challenged the order pertaining to the process of making chandeliers as manufacture and there is nothing in regard to other items assembled by them. He submits that the respondent had accepted this contention of Revenue that the process of making chandeliers amounted to manufacture for the purpose of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the respondents had claimed benefit of small scale exemption under the Notification then in force which was granted by the Authorities. He submits that in the present appeal there is no questioning about admissibility of the SSI exemption to the respondents herein and hence t...
Monnet Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT380TriDel
1. The applicants filed the refund claim before the adjudicating authority on the strength of the order passed by the Tribunal on 9-5-2002 in their appeal, but the same has been declined on the ground that since the case has been remanded by the Tribunal for de novo adjudication, the refund claim is pre-matured. But we find that the refund claim has been filed by the applicants in respect of the amount which was pre-deposited by them in pursuance of the Tribunal's stay order passed in their appeal, on the stay petition. The appeal of the applicants has also been decided. The matter has been, no doubt, remanded to the adjudicating authority by the Tribunal, but their refund of the pre-deposited amount could not be declined by holding the same to be pre-matured. Their claim deserves to be examined/considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Voltas Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 34. Therefore, the adjudicating authority is directed to pass appropr...
Parshwanath Traders and Core Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC145
1. The orders impugned in these two appeals relate to imports of used tyres by the appellants. The tyres were declared in the import documents as old used worn out discarded tyres use in animal driven vehicles. The value of the used tyres was declared at US $ 75 PMT. The impugned orders confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the appellants on the ground that the goods have been mis-declared in respect of description for the purpose of Import Policy and undervalued in regard to levy of customs duty.2. The findings are based solely on market enquiry. It is the contention of the appellants that there was no reliable evidence justifying the findings. It has been pointed out that, even according to Panchanama prepared at the time of seizure, the tyres in question were old and used. Part of the consignments have also been accepted as tyres for animal drawn vehicles, tractor trolley etc. The objection is in respect of the remaining tyres as they have been held to be for LCVs. The appel...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC470
1. Issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether it is open to the Assessing Authority while finalizing the provisional assessment to appropriate the securities furnished for the subsequent period in respect of which no duty demand is raised against the assessee.2. The Assistant Commissioner finalized the provisional assessment for the period October, 1980 to September, 1996 under Order-in-Original No.25/2000, dated 19-4-2000. Under a separate proceedings vide Order No.49/2000, dated 14-7-2000 provisional assessment for the period October, 1996 to March, 2000 was finalized. While passing the order dated 19-4-2000 the duty demand was to the extent of Rs. 6.84 crores. The Assistant Commissioner appropriated an amount of Rs. 4.40 crores from the ad-hoc cash deposit made by the assessee in the relevant period.For the balance amount of Rs. 2.34 crores, ignoring the cash securities furnished for the above mentioned period, an amount of Rs. 39.5 Lacs was appropriated...
Rati Ram Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi101
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order of the STA Board communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. F.STA/Misc./2000-2107 dated 21.6.2000, by which the STA Board of the respondent cancelled the permit granted to the petitioner bearing No. SC/3000/VE/0068/91 in respect of bus No. DL-I-P-2028.3. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for extension/renewal of the permit.4. Petitioner had been granted a permanent stage carriage permit, under the scheme by which 3000 such permits were granted in the year 1991. The permit was intended to be for 5 year period, subject to further renewals. However, the respondents kept on renewing the same for lesser duration, resulting in its extension up to 1.10.1999. The permit is purported to have been cancelled by the respondents by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had transferred the permit in fav...
Wings Wear Workers Lal Jhanda Union Vs. Wings Wear Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT202
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. It is not in dispute that salaries to the workmen have been paid till May, 1995. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 31,00,000/- is due and payable pursuant to the Award passed by the learned Tribunal and that if this Award is given effect to fully, approximately Rs. 1,00,00,000/- would be outstanding against the respondent. Mr. Beri, however, contends that the amount would be around Rs. 10,00,000/-, i.e. Gratuity dues amounting to Rs. 9,35,323/- and a further sum of approximately Rs. 50,000/- would be due on account of Leave Encashment. However, Mr. Beri submits that if the petitioners are willing to accept the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Company shall make this payment.2. It is indubitably clear that the respondent is indebted to the petitioner. Mr. Beri states that the respondent has not transacted any business since 1995, as the factory is lying closed. The respondent is, thereforee, undeniably not a going concern. The Co...
Mr. Devendra Kumar Agrawal Son of Late Shri Raj Kumar Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT461; 2003(1)SLJ177(Delhi)
Vijener Jain, J. 1. Petitioner retired as Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short 'CAT') . Petitioner retired at the age of 58 years on superannuation w.e.f. 20.2.1988 as District Judge, Ghazibad. He was subsequently appointed as Member of the CAT at Allahabad Bench, Allahabad w.e.f. 1.3.1988. After attaining the age of 62 years w.e.f.27.2.1992 he was appointed as Vice Chairman of the CAT, Jabalpur w.e.f. 15.5.1992. Petitioner retired as Vice Chairman of CAT w.e.f. 27.2.1995 after attaining age of 65 years.2. By this writ petition, petitioner has contended that in view of Rule-15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') petitioners was entitled to pension under para 2 of Part III of First Schedule of High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 on the basis of the Rule 15-A of the said Rules.3. In...
NavIn Chemicals Manufacturing and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)216; [2003]259ITR111(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. These are three cross-references by the Revenue and the assessed. Since a common statement of the case has been drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' (for short 'the Tribunal'), these references are being disposed of by this common order. 2. We have heard Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. No one appears on behalf of the assessed. 3. The Tribunal has referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following questions for our opinion. 4. Questions at the instance of the assessed for the assessment year 1977-78 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed was not entitled to relief under Section 35B in respect of the expenditure incurred on shipping and forwarding, audit fee, insurance, filing fee, legal and professional fees, charity and donation and miscellaneous expenses 2. Whether, on the facts and in the...
Mangal SaIn Jog Dhian Vs. Hari Shankar Rastogi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ751
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the second appeal filed by the appellants/tenants against the order dated 19th December, 1989 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the order dated 24th October, 1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller disposing of the petition of the respondents under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short referred to as 'the Act') was disposed of after giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the appellants. Brief facts relevant to the decision of this appeal are :2. One Lala Jog Dhian was the owner of the property bearing No. 5703-5722, Nai Sarak, Delhi in a family partition in the year 1947, the property fell to the share of Smt. Chandrawati Devi wife of the said Lala Jog Dhian and she, thereforee, became the owner/landlord of the said property. In a portion of the property bearing No. 5722, Nai Sarak, Delhi, comprising of one big hall, three rooms and one shed on the ground floor the appellant No. 1, a partnership fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »