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.
Bhiwani Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT535TriDel
2. In this case, show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of Modvat credit of Rs. 6,99,305/- on the ground that the inputs were not used in the manufacture of their final product.3. The contention of the appellant is that the inputs in question were destroyed in a fire in the blow room of the factory and intimation was given to the Revenue regarding the fire. The contention of the appellant is also that the goods of value of Rs. 38 lakhs approximately were destroyed in the fire whereas they had only claimed the benefit from the Insurance Company only to the extent of Rs. 32 lakhs and the appellant had not claimed any compensation from the Insurance Company in respect of the duty paid on the inputs.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the inputs were not used in the manufacture of the final product and the appellant had claimed the value of the goods from the Insurance Company.5. Admittedly the facts of the case are that the goods were destroyed in the blow room d...
Northern Tannery Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC305
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Northern Tannery is whether Special Additional Duty of Customs is payable by them on the goods imported.2. Shri C.K. Rawal, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture finished leather, shoes, etc., for exporting to various countries; that they had imported Wet Blue Buff Hides falling under sub-heading No. 4101.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act from Nepal during the month of March, 2000. The goods were cleared without payment of duty and that subsequently a show cause notice dated 8-9-2000 was issued for demanding Special Additional Duty from them; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order has confirmed the demand of duty along with interest. He further submitted that Notification No. 18/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000 provides exemption from Special Additional Duty to all goods which are exempt from (a) the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule; and (b) the whole ...
Sh. Shib Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ244CAT
(ii) quash and set-aside the Order dated 8.11.1994 and 8th July 1999 passed by the Respondent No. 1 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, untenable, without jurisdiction with all its consequences. (iii) quash and set-aside the Memorandum dated 31st August, 1999 with all its consequences; (iv) declare the action of the respondents in continuing the applicant under suspension since 1994 as well as in issuing the Memorandum dated 31st August, 1999 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and untenable in law with all its consequences; (vi) pass any other order or orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Briefly enumerated, applicant was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-21. On araid by the CBI, FIR bearing No. RC 62(A)/94-DLI dated 7.9.94 was registered against the applicant under Section 7, and 13(2) read with 13( 1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Applicant was arrested on 8.9.94 and remained ...
Vikas Pharma (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ590
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 a writ of mandamus to the respondent to issue the letter of possession to it in the interest of justice in relation to plot No.2170, Narela Industrial Complex, New Delhi.3. Petitioner's case is that petitioner company, Vikas Pharma (India) Pvt. Ltd., which was earlier a partnership concern, came to be incorporated as private Limited Company w.e.f. 1.10.1993. Petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing import and export of pharmaceutical products etc. Petitioner had its manufacturing activities located at 1/3848, Bhagwanpur Khera, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi. Pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, petitioner company, like many others, was required to relocate its activities and shift from the non-conforming areas.4. Petitioner applied for allotment of an industrial plot. Petitioner...
Shri S.M. Gupta, S/O Shri N.M. Gupta Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Th ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT488; 2003(67)DRJ41; (2003)ILLJ1062Del
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of termination of his services. Petitioner was dismissed from service on 25th May, 1995 while he was working as a Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 16th October, 1993 as well as the report of the inquiry officer dated 25th March, 1995 which was based on the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 29th July, 1994.2. The whole controversy revolves round the inquiry report as well as the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondents issued a charge sheet vide memo dated 29th July, 1994. Petitioner sent a representation on 16th August, 1994 stating, inter alia, that in view of the complaint lodged with the Police Station Connaught Place, and FIR having been registered against the petitioner, the departmental inquiry be stayed as grave prejudice to the defense of the petitioner would be caused in the criminal ...
Cwt Vs. S. Mahinder Jaspal Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN505(Delhi)
ORDERBy the courtThe case has been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities. Since the issue raised in the reference stands concluded by a decision of the Apex Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books.2. At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-A, Delhi has referred under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing that the valuation of property at Narinder Palace, New Delhi be done in accordance with rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, which came into existence with effect from 1-4-1979 and had retrospective effect?'3. As is evident from the format of the question referred, the only issue raised by the revenue is as to whether rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax R...
Uc Gas Engineering Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Mysore and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ210
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. It is needless to say that Bank guarantee cannot be invoked against the terms of Bank guarantee. I deem it needless to refer to the catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court down the lines and over the period that invocation of bank guarantee has to be strictly in terms of Bank guarantee. A party seeking injunction against the invocation of bank guarantee has to establish prima facie element of fraud and irretrievable loss and injury of the kind which is liable to be compensated which would make it impossible for the guarantor to reimburse himself in case he succeeds finally.2. Admittedly in the instant case neither the plea of fraud nor that of irretrievable injury has been taken in specific terms. The solitary objection raised by the plaintiff is that the letter of invocation is not as per terms and conditions of Bank guarantee and as such it was not invokable. The terms of the Bank guarantee resorted by the applicant/plaintiff is as under:-'1. That in consi...
In Re: Highland Electro Appliances Private Limited;
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ593; [2003]42SCL516(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. These petitions have been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, praying for sanction to be accorded to the Scheme of Amalgamation of Highland Electro Appliances Private Limited (Transferor Company No.1), Jetland Marketing Services Private Limited (Transferor Company No.2) and K.T. Electronics Private Limited (Transferor Company No.3) with Global Solutions Private Limited (Transferee Company)2. The Petitioners have placed on record copies of the Scheme of Amalgamation. The objects and salient features of the Scheme and the circumstances necessitating the amalgamation of the above said companies have been explained in the petitions. I find no reason to disagree with he expectations of the Petitioner Companies.3. The Registered Offices of all the above said Transferor Companies and of the Transferee Company are situated at New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In fact they share the same address in respect of their Registered O...
Anup Jindal Vs. Jagdish Chander Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT234
S. Mukerjee, J.is No. 12514/2000 1. This application (I.A. No. 12514/2000) has been preferred under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff praying for passing of preliminary decree for partition of the suit property on the basis of alleged admissions made by the defendants in the pleadings, as well as 'otherwise'. The brief facts of the case to the extent required for the purposes of consideration and disposal of the present application, are that one Shri Ram Dhari, Grandfather of the plaintiff, was the co-owner of the property No. A-25 Wazirpur Industrial Scheme, Ashok Vihar, Phase I, Delhi-52. This is admitted in the written statement by the defendant.2. Further case of the plaintiff is that his grand father, Shri Ram Dhari executed a registered 'Will' dated 11th May, 1984 bequeathing the said grandfather's half-share in the property, in favor of the plaintiff. It is also the agreed position that Shri Ram Dhari died on 30.1.1988.3. Whereas the plaintiff contends ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. U.P. Upbhokta Sehkari Sangh Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ596
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) is directed against an Award dated 26.4.1999 passed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 11-F/98. The objector/petitioner prays for selling aside the Award dated 26.4.1999.2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that vide an agreement dated 10.11.1994 respondent No. 1 had entered into a contract with the petitioner for supply of 500 ml. of refined mustard oil. In the agreement there was a risk purchase clause also. The respondent was required to furnish a security deposit by 24.11.1994. Time was extended up to 8.12.1994, but still the respondent failed to furnish the security amount. According to the petitioner/objection, respondent No. 1 could not deliver refined mustard oil in terms of the agreement till the extended period up to 20.2.1995 and as such, the contract was cancelled by a notice dated 10.3.1995. Ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »