Delhi Court December 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 Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Kusum Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT901; 2003(67)DRJ260
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. The present petition relates to property No. A-85, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Smt. Kusum Mehta, judgment debtor No. 1 was the owner of the said property. The decree holder entered into an agreement to sell dated 9th October, 1980 with the judgment debtor No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/- which was paid to her. The decree holder on 6th November, 1980 took possession of the said property after making full consideration to the judgment debtor No. 1 and put a lock thereon. The judgment debtor No. 1 thereafter lodged a police complaint against the decree holder and got him arrested. As the decree holder narrated the corrects facts before the Appropriate Authorities, the case against him stood cancelled. The decree holder thereafter filed a suit for injunction and the Court was pleased to grant status quo order in his favor. It is stated that before the order could be served upon the judgment debtor No. 1, she ...
Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. Vs. Dip Crafts Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC163(Del)
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC praying for a temporary injunction against the defendant, restraining the said defendant, its servants, agents, distributors, stockists and all others acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner whatsoever in the impugned designs named 'Stylush', 'Corel' and 'Ultra' or any other designs which are identical to or deceptively similar or an obvious fraudulent imitation thereto in relation to bath tubs of the plaintiff named as 'Tiffany', 'Strauss' and ' Aruba' which would amount to passing off, piracy and infringement of the plaintiff's design registration Nos. 183452, 183457 and 183458.2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded is that it developed bath tubs, particularly, those bath tubs under the titles and designations Tiffany', 'Aruba' and 'Strauss', which ...
N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. R.K. Construction Company
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR465(Delhi); 102(2003)DLT809
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. These are the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award passed by Shri G.G. Shivdasani, Arbitrator on 19.10.2001 against the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts are, the respondent was awarded the work of construction of Community Centre and Vyayamshala at Village Ujwa in NG Block as per letter No. F(72)/94-95/AS/SDD-V/6005 dated 21.3.1995 for a sum of Rs. 32,66,106/-. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the contract was rescinded by the petitioner on 23.12.1996 and the disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. G.S. Shivdasani who has since made his award on 19.10.2001.3. It is stated that the main claim of the respondent before the arbitrator was that the petitioner did not supply the requisite drawings and thereforee the work could not be completed. On the other hand the contract could not be fulfilled because of the respondent's lackluster approach to contractual ob...
Smt. Sarita JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Del)543; [2003]261ITR499(Delhi)
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice dated July 31, 2002, and the letter dated October 28, 2002, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle XXI, Kolkata, under Sections 142(1) and 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), calling upon the petitioner to furnish information for the purpose of assessment for the block period April 1, 1990, to February 12, 2001.2. The main grievance of the petitioner, an individual, is that the said notice and the letter are without jurisdiction inasmuch as she has been a regular assessed in Delhi for the last many years and at no point of time before the issue of the impugned notice/letter she had received any intimation regarding transfer of her case from Delhi. It is pleaded that only by virtue of letter dated October 28, 2002, the petitioner had learnt about an order purportedly passed under Section 127(2) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, on October 15, 2002, allegedly trans...
Airport Authority of India Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT97TriDel
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants in view of Public Notice No. 29/86, dated 29-4-1986 are custodian of detained/mishandled baggage to be stored pending clearance/re-export/disposal. Certain goods were handed over to the appellants by the Customs authorities in the year 1993 and the same were returned to the Customs authorities in the year 1996. The present show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 18-9-1998 on the ground that the goods handed over to the appellants were found short and, therefore, they are liable to pay the price of the short goods as well as the customs duty. The adjudicating authority ordered the recovery of the value of the goods and the customs duty. The appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there is no provision under the Customs Act to recover the value of the goods and upheld the order in respect of the demand of customs duty.3. The contention of the appellants is that, the goods w...
Scooter India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC654Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute arising in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the goods manufactured by it arc to be classified under 8706.31, as claimed by the assessee or under 8706.21, as alleged by the Revenue. The appellant, a Government of India Undertaking is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts thereof classified under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. Three wheeler driveway chassis manufactured by the appellant are sold to independent buyers who in turn get body fabricated as auto rickshaw or a load carrier or a delivery van. The appellant had been filing classification lists under Rule 173-B from time to lime. Till an audit objection was raised in 2000, appellant's claim for classifying the chassis under sub-heading 8706.31 read with 8703.10 was being accepted and goods were cleared on that basis. It is the case of the appellant that they have manufactured only 4 or 5 pieces of three-wheelers as a prototype during the relevant period for the purpo...
South East Electronic Components Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC395
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.102-CE/MRT/2002 dated 26.4.2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 16,08,186 against M/s. South East Electronics Components Pvt. Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 13,07,017 on the Company and Rs. 15,000 on Shri I.S. Banan, Director.2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant Company manufactures various components of machines as per the orders of their customers;, that they had, in view of the need of the customers, also developed tools/dyes as per drawings provided by the customers; that tools, so developed, are used in the manufacture of components; that after paying the duty on the tools so developed, the tools are retained by them for use in the manufacture of final products; that the Additional Commissioner under the Adjudication Order No. 46/2000 dated 29.9.2000 confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that t...
Samidha Productions Vs. Broadcasting Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ336
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner in response to an advertisement of respondent No. 2 i.e. Directorate General, Doordarshan, inviting proposals, under the new sponsorship scheme in September, 1990, gave his proposal for telecasting a Seriall. Petitioner offered to telecast his Seriall 'Jhumru or Seat Thug' under the categories of children Serialls. Certain discrepancies were pointed out to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. Petitioner claims to have removed the same.3. In the year 1992, the petitioner's Seriall was listed at item No. 7 in the wait list for the prime slot. Subsequently, the respondents informed the petitioner that there has been a change and prioritisation of Serialls would be done by random number generation through a computer. Based on the 'random generation' petitioner's Seriall was waitlisted at priority No. 21. The petitioner waited in vain to hear from the respondent but to no avai...
Sab Industries Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR523(Delhi); 2003(66)DRJ543
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a petition for appointment of an Arbitrator preferably a Retd. High Court Judge as in the past as many as three Arbitrators have resigned and after resignation of second Arbitrator, the respondents did not appoint fresh Arbitrator within the prescribed period of 30 days and a new Arbitrator was appointed after two months and the said Arbitrator has also resigned. Now the respondents have appointed one Mr. A.K. Singhal as a new Arbitrator.2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of directions of this court vide order dated 26.9.1995 in the face of the allegations of the respondents that petitioner's claim is based upon forged documents and the CBI is seized of the matter that the proceedings before the Arbitrator should continue, the last Arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die vide order dated 10.8.2000 and since then the proceedings are lying dormant.3. However, on 10.12.2002, the new Arbitrator Mr. A.K. Singhal fixed the proceedings fo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kammholz Kurt
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)525
D.K. JAIN, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E, has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, the following question for the opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the living allowance was exempt under Section 10(14) of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed. Accordingly we have heard Mr. R.C. Pandey learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue.3. As is apparent from the format of the question, the issue arising for consideration is as to whether the living allowance received by a foreign technician is exempt under Section 10(14) of the Act. Since the issue is purely legal, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts.4. Answer to the question stands concluded by the decision of the apex Court in CIT v. Goslino Mario and Ors. : [2000]241ITR312(SC) , wherein it has been held that the rupee payment taken in India in the shape of daily allowanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »