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.
The Motor and General Finance Limited Vs. Durga Builders Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ25
S. Mukerjee, J.IA Nos. 6891/01 and 6892/011. In view of the orders passed on is Nos. 6994-95/01 nothing survives in these applications which are accordingly disposed of as such.IA Nos. 6994-95/012. These are two applications. I.A. No. 6994/01 has been preferred under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 for restraining M/s. Sonal Developers from getting their party rights in the said property. The second application 6995/2001 is under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s. Sonal Developers as defendant in view of the mortgaged property having been transferred in favor of the said party/non-applicant.3. The brief background of facts necessary for the purpose of consideration of the present interim application may be set out for convenience of reference.4. The plaintiff is a well reputed finance company. It is a case of the plaintiff that on the request of the Managing Director of the Defendant No. 1 (Durga Builders Ltd.) the plaintiff No. 1 provided Inter Corporate Deposits (ICD) from time to time.5....
Joginder @ Danny, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2970; 102(2003)DLT738; 2003(67)DRJ104
R.C. Jain, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners who are related as brothers have challenge their detention orders dated 30-01-02 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. Brief facts germane to the passing of the impugned detention orders are similar but not identical and, thereforee, the need to recapitulate the facts and circumstances relatable to the detention orders in each case. In the petition in writ petition No. 359/02 Joginder @ Danny son of Late Shri Nathu Ram, resident of C-639-40, Mangol Puri, Delhi, it is alleged that he is a desperate and hardened criminal of the area of Police Station Mangol Puri. He belongs to Sansi tribe and his parents and most of his brothers and sisters are registered BCs (Bad Characters) of Police Station, Mangol Puri, Delhi. He committed his first crime i.e. an offence ...
Chitralekha Bukshi Vs. Abhay Sapru and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT152; 2003(67)DRJ181
Usha Mehra, J. 1. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowedthe amendment of the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Theappellant/defendant is aggrieved by the said amendment and, thereforee,this appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the challenge in this appeal, we mayhave a quick glance to the facts of this case. Lt. General B.M. Kaul was theowner of plot No. 16, Block-A admeasuring 1205 sq.yds. Situated atVillages Basant Nagar and Mohammadpur, Munirka (Zone F6) nowknown as Westend. Lt. General B.M. Kaul built a house on the said land ofwhich he was the exclusive owner. The house in question was built in theyear 1968. Lt. General B.M. Kaul died on 18.4.1972. It is alleged that hedied intestate. After his death the property in question was mutated withthe DDA in the name of his wife Smt. D.K. Kaul, and in the name of his twodaughters, Smt. Anuradha Sapru and Smt. Chitralekha Bukshi. They werethe only legal heirs left by Lt. General B.M. Kaul. It is further alleged thato...
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. Vs. A.K. Das and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT794; 2003(26)PTC222(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of this application, the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to include paragraphs 20A and 20B as set out in paragraph 5 of the application.2. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff is running a television channel under the trademark HBO/HOME BOX OFFICE since November 1972. In March 1996, plaintiff learnt that defendant No. 2 proposed to launch a cable television programming service under the mark CBO/CABLE BOX OFFICE. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction, passing off, etc. against the defendants.3. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff launched HBO channel in India in March 2000. At the time of institution of the suit, the channel of the plaintiff was not available on cable television in India. thereforee, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend its plaint by inserting paragraphs 20A and 20B in the plaint as set out in the application.4. The amendments sought for are opposed by the defendants No. 1...
Harjeet Singh @ Poppy and Sudhadhar @ Sofi @ Sudhakar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2151; 103(2003)DLT217; 2003(67)DRJ46
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9.1.2001 and order dated 10.1.2001 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 39/98 arising out of FIR No. 599/97 of Police Station Shakarpur under Section 302/34 IPC, thereforee, these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Harjeet Singh @ Poppy under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- failing which he has been directed to further undergo R.I for six months.3. The appellant Sudhadhar @ Soft @ Sudhakar has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and has been sentenced to 7 year rigorous imprisonment. He has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- failing which he shall under go R.I for six months.4. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 22nd November, 1997 P.W. 11, Chaman Singh, went to the house of his friend Yogender Kumar, be...
Madan Lal JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 103(2003)DLT416
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. By means of this Review Application No. 12428/2002 the petitioner is seeking review of judgment and order dated 11.7.2002 passed in this writ petition whereby the said writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed with costs. As Mr. Jayant Bhushan appeared for the respondents, without issuing formal notice in this review application, both the parties were heard at length.2. The contention of the petitioner in this review application is that in the aforesaid judgment this Court failed to place reliance on various documents and admissions made on record by the respondents, and as such, said judgment of this Court suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has annexed certain documents along with this review application and the submission made is that these documents would demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to relief claimed in the writ petition.3. Before coming to the detailed arguments advanced by the parties, it would be necessary ...
Priya Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC88
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BQRROVICHI: that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99 dated 30.3.99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96/Cus. dated 3.7.1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14.12.2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified alongwith the ship. The learned Advocate, fu...
Priya Holding (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT104TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BORROVICHI; that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210/-; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99, dated 30-3-99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food-stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96 Cus., dated 3-7-1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14-12-2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified along with the ship. The learned Advocat...
Heemanshu Traders Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC599
1. The issue involved in these seven appeals, arising out of a common adjudication order, is whether the value of clearances of the excisable goods of all the units is to be clubbed for the purpose of assessment of Central Excise Duty.2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the Central Excise officers intercepted a truck No. GRW - 2645 on 7-4-88 at Umbergaon Sanjan Road.The driver of the truck produced a Challan No. 862, dated 7-4-88 for M.S. Scrap issued by M/s. Heemanshu Auto Ltd. The driver, however, did not produce any Central Excise gate pass. In his statement, the Excise clerk of Heemanshu Traders deposed that as per oral instruction of Shri Girisbhai Shah, he prepared a challan for dispatch of 12.285 Kgs. of M.S. Scrap from M/s. Heemanshu Traders in the name of M/s. Heemanshu Auto Ltd. Scrutiny of records of Heemanshu Traders revealed that duty determined under Gate Passes for the period from 4th April, 1988 to 7th April, 1988 had not been debited. Some goods such as Electric hor...
Harbans Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT184TriDel
1. The challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner dated 7-3-2002. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of razor and razor blades.For the above purpose, they also manufacture within their factory Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Strips. Apart from the captive consumption of the steel strips, appellants also sell these steel strips to independent buyers in the market. Such sale would come to 15% of its production.The issue arising in this appeal is whether the price at which the steel strips have been sold to the independent buyers in terms of Section 4(1) (a) of the Act, should be adopted or on the basis of cost of production. The Commissioner proceeded to apply Rule 6(b)(ii) for the reason that the appellant have not given all the details of value of the comparable goods.2. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that in the declaration filed by them under Rule 173C they have indicated the price at which the goods were so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »