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.
Dalip Singh Oberoi and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT595; (2003)IILLJ627Del; 2003(1)SLJ229(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) is aggrieved by an order dismissing him from service as far back as in 1986.2. 2. The petitioner was appointed with respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the Bank) and confirmed as a Grade-I Officer on 1st August, 1976. When the State Bank of India (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 came into force, the petitioner was placed in the grade of Junior Management Grade Scale-I (for short JMG Scale-I).3. 3. While the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar branch of the Bank, certain irregularities came to the notice of the respondents. Accordingly, on or about 9th May, 1984 the Chief Regional Manager of the Bank asked the Audit Verification Cell to look into the irregularities. A detailed report was prepared by the Audit Verification Cell and submitted to the Chief Regional Manager on 22nd May, 1984.4. While the report was under...
Mangal Textile Mills (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC645
1. In these appeals the short issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.29/96 dated 3.9.96 and claim deemed credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the grey fabric, which is being processed by the appellant.2. In the order under challenge in Appeal No. E/2434/2001-D such deemed credit was denied to the appellant for the reason that, appellants' final product coming under sub-heading 5801.22 is not covered by the above-mentioned notification. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice corrigendum dated 3.9.96 to Trade Notice No.91/96 by which final products falling under Heading Nos. 5801 and 5802 were included in the list of final product in Notification No. 29/96.When the heading 5801 as such is included, there is no justification for denial of benefit claimed for the reason that sub-heading 5801.21 is not specifically mentioned. The revenue has no case that the final product will not...
In Re: Feedback Reach Consultancy Services Private Limited (Transferor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas897(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT501; 2003(66)DRJ356; [2003]42SCL82(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. These petitioners have been filed under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, praying for sanction to be accorded to the Scheme of Amalgamation of Feedback Reach Consultancy Services Private Limited (Transferor Company No. I), Feedback Infrastructure Private Limited (Transferor Company No. II) with Feedback Ventures Private Limited (Transferee Company). 2. The Registered Offices of both the Transferor Companies and Transferee Company are situated at New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In fact they share the same address in respect off their registered Offices. 3. The Board of Directors of the Transferor Companies and the Transferee Company have passed their respective Resolutions approving the Scheme of Amalgamation.4. The objects and salient features of the Scheme and the circumstances necessitating the amalgamation of the companies have been explained in the petitioners. I find no reason to disagree with the expectations of the Petit...
Kailash Samrat and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT333
C.M. No. 2624/2002.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.This is an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the Senior Counsel is not available. This was also the reason on the last date of hearing for seeking adjournment itself. No ground made out for adjonrnment.Dismissed.C.R.No. 1197/2000:1. The petitioner has impugned the orders of the learned Additional District Judge dated 13.11.2000 and the learned Sub-Judge dated 16.1.1989 in terms whereof the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction was declined.2. The petitioner had filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner except in accordance with law and along with the suit an application for interim relief was filed. The factual matrix is limited inasmuch as one Shri Harbans Lal Samrat who was granted lease hold rights in pursuance to the lease deed dated 27th February, 1963 in respect of A-74, Outram Lines, Kingsway Camp measuring 52 square yards at a concessional price since th...
Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Rudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC175(Del)
S.N. Kapoor, J.CMs 1001-1002/2002Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Certified copies of the documents in question be filed within four weeks. CMs stand disposed of.CM (M) 5492002 and CM 110(1/20021. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. In this case, the petitioner is trading in Shakti Bhog Atta etc. and they have got the trademark registered in the name of Shakti Bhog effective from 16th June, 1982.3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent is using the trademark Shiv Shakti with a Trishul and Damru written in different form using this trademark for the purpose of Atta, Maida and Suji in class 30 since 6th March, 1990. They applied for registration on 30th October, 1990. The appellant filed an opposition to the application. The learned Assistant Registrar of Trademarks rejected the opposition and allowed registration of the trademark of the respondent Shiv Shakti with a device Trishul and Damru.4. Feeling aggrieved by the above order the appellant has filed the p...
Dr. Kunal Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT471
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The question arising for consideration is whether a doctor, with an M.B.B.S. degree, having deficiently of colour blindness, is to be debarred from pursuing any post graduate Medical Course? The concerned Medical College denied admission to the petitioner in M.D. (Pathology). The Director General of Health Services and the Committee of Experts opined that the petitioner being totally colour blind cannot be considered for admission in Post Graduate Course in Anaesthesiology, Psychiatry and Community Medicine.3. Here are the facts:-(i) Petitioner is a Doctor, who completed his M.B.B.S. from Nalanda Medical College, Patna, Bihar. Petitioner earnestly desired to pursue higher studies. Accordingly he appeared in the All India Quota, Post Graduate Entrance Examination. Results was declared in the month of February, 2002.(ii) Petitioner qualified and ranked at No. 1308. Petitioner opted for th...
Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-21-2002
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT412(Del)
ORDER1. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued circular No. 673/64/2002-CX, dated 24th October 2002, clarifying that once an MRP is scored out, (even if it remains visible) and another printed on the package, it could not be said that the package has two MRPs printed on it, since the scored out MRP could not be considered as an MRP either by the seller or by the consumer.2. In view of the said circular, which admittedly is binding on the revenue authorities, impugned circular No. 639/30/2002-CX stands modified and thereforee further action on the two impugned letters dated 15th July, 2002 and 23rd July, 2002 has to be in terms of the afore-noted circular, dated 24th October, 2002.3. In view of the said circular, no further orders are required in this petition. The petition as well as the application stand disposed of accordingly. Interim order dated 9th August, 2002 is rendered infructuous and stands vacated accor...
Commissioner C. Ex. Vs. Shaw Wallace Gelantines Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT311TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against that part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 3-6-2002/9-7-2002 vide which he has allowed Modvat credit in respect of air-conditioning plant spares/components and accessories under Rule 57Q to the respondents. The other part of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit in respect of other items detailed in that order as well as in the show cause notice, had not been challenged by the Revenue.3. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. They have only sent written submissions. I have heard the learned JDR and gone through the record.4. The perusal of the impugned order shows that while allowing Modvat credit on the components/spares and accessories used that for refrigeration and air-conditioning to the respondents under Rule 57Q, the Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Chukapalli Autom...
E.P. Electro Processing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT416TriDel
1. M/s. E.P. Electro Processing (P) Ltd., have filed this appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 377-78-C.E./DLH/2002 dated 3-7-2002 under which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of duty and penalty against them.2. Shri Suresh Agarwal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture both dutiable as well as exempted goods in two separate portions of their factory; that they availed the facility of Modvat credit under Rule 57A and Rule 57Q at the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the department has demanded duty and imposed penalty in respect of scrap generated during the manufacture of exempted goods; that the scrap arising in the course of manufacture of exempted goods is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 89/95 dated 18-5-95; that however proviso to the notification provides that the exemption shall not apply to waste or scrap cleared from a factory in which any other excisable goods other than exempted goods are also manufactured;...
Euro CostpIn Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC147
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Euro Costpin Ltd. is whether they are liable to pay the Additional Excise Duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 on the yarn manufactured by them.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants is a 100% Export Oriented Unit, manufactures cotton yarn and blended yarn; that the matter is covered against them by judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Vardhman Polyex Ltd. v. UOI 2001 (78) ECC 53 (P & H); 2001 (135) ELT 17 (P & H) in which they were also one of the Appellants; that on appeals filed by the Appellants, the Supreme Court has directed vide Order dated 16.9.2002 that "any action taken, pursuant to the impugned circular by the respondents shall be subject to the results of these appeals." He also mentioned that the Appellants have been registered with BIFR as sick industry which is evident from letter dated 27.11.2001 of BIFR. He fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »