Delhi Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Unipatch Rubber Limited Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC616
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it was held that Criss Cross Rubber patches for tyres manufactured by the appellant are classifiable under Chapter heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. We find that the issue in respect of classification of the product in question is settled by the Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 477/2000-C dated 27.10.2000-D in Appeal No. E/316/99-C.In this case the Tribunal held that the Criss Cross Rubber for tyres are classifiable under Sub-heading 4008.22 (earlier 4008.21) of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant had filed appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is admitted but the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not granted any Stay of operation of the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal, we find no merit in the present appeal, t...
Punjab Project and Construction Vs. Cce, Bhubaneswar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT154TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar dated 11-12-1992. Under the impugned order demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,28,710/- against M/s. Punjab Project & Construction Co. Ltd. and M/s. NALCO Ltd. was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- each was imposed on them under Section 173Q of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the above order Appeal Nos, E/349/93-B and E/68/93-B are filed by M/s. Punjab Project & Construction Co. Ltd. and M/s. NALCO respectively.2. In the year 1985 the above mentioned parties had entered into a contract for fabrication and erection of Pot Shells by M/s. Punjab Project & Construction Co. Ltd. at the premises of M/s. NALCO. The work was completed in 1986. Show cause notice was then issued on 18-5-92 proposing to levy duty on the manufacture of Pot Shells. While confirming the demand the Collector took the view that Pot Shell is distinct...
Goramal Hariram Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC582
1. These appeals arise out of a Common Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in Appeal No. HKS (807 & 808) ICD/2001, dated 26-9-2001 filed by the appellant. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant has not opted for any provisional assessment in the case and that he did not file application within three months of the order of appraisement nor did file appeal within three months of obtaining a speaking order on his letter of protest.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in spite of repeated request the authorities issued no speaking order and, therefore, there was no justification in the Commissioner (Appeals) finding fault with the appellant in not filing the appeals after obtaining speaking orders. We heard learned Departmental Representative also.3. It is true that the appellant could have filed an application under Section 27 instead of making request for an appealable order. If the duty has been paid...
Rajputana Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT193TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise.2. In the impugned order, the duty of Rs. 41,415.00 was confirmed against the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants' premises were searched and during verification, it was found that nine bags were cleared without payment of duty and there was shortage of 1319 empty gunny bags and there were also private records seized from the premises which show that they were receiving the inputs without entering into their statutory record and cleared the final product without payment of duty. On this count, the impugned order was passed after issuing a show cause notice.5. The contention of the appellants is that there is no evidence in support of the allegation levelled in the show cause notice. The contention of the appellants is that while preparing R.T. 12 returns for July, 1987, they had wrongly shown the clea...
Babu Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ARBLR22(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT356; 2002(62)DRJ344
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Through this suit, the award dated 28.12.1995 is sought to be made rule of the court. On being noticed, the respondent-UOI has preferred objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 through I.A. 7583/1996.2. Challenge to the award has a limited scope as the court does not sit in appeal and thereforee re-appraisal or re-evaluation or re-assessment of evidence or material is not permissible. It is only in rare cases where perversity as to finding of fact or proposition of law is writ large then the award requires rejection or remittance. Again if the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms of the agreement, award is liable to be set aside on account of non-jurisdiction. Similarly, if the Arbitrator ignores the material document which has significant bearing on arriving at just and fair decision, the award is liable to be remitted for re-decision. If the Arbitrator proceeds on the unsound proposition of law, he renders his award unworthy of accepta...
Mmtc Limited Vs. Skate Shipping Company S.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT181; 2002(62)DRJ238
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both the parties appear to be in catch 22 situation.2. Petitioner's concern is to redeem the cargo worth 4.5 million dollars or its value. Respondent wants its vessel back. Chinese Government wants its pound of flesh for retrieving the vessel and the cargo from buccaneers who are commonly known as high sea pirates. Chinese authorities recognize only vessel owner. Diplomatic efforts of Government of India to get back the cargo have borne no fruits. On the representation of the petitioner respondent has been restrained from receiving the sale/auction proceeds. This order was obtained on the expectation that Chinese Authorities will release the cargo to the petitioner through the offices of the Government of India. Petitioner was either over-confident or ignorant of chinese law and restrained the respondent from receiving the sale/auction proceeds. On the other hand respondent has under the garb of the restraint order obtained by the petitioner shown his inability to fur...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Shri Ramji Dass Khanna (Through Lrs) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi305; 97(2002)DLT919; 2002(62)DRJ766
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petitions are taken up for disposal.2. Civil Writ petition No. 4794/98 has been filed by Dr. Vivek Banyal, who was the Doctor on duty, managing Intensive Coronary Care Unit (ICCU) on the fateful night of 5th and morning of 6th February, 1997.Petitioner in the second civil writ petition No. 6369/98 is the Hospital, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital.3. Dr. Vivek Banyal, petitioner in CW.No. 4794/98, seeks the relief of setting aside and quashing of the enquiry report i.e., annexure C to the writ petition, which a per the petitioner indicts him. Further directions are sought for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned indictment of the petitioner.4. In CW.No. 6369/98, Sunder Lal Charitable Hospital, has again sought quashing of the report of the three member enquiry Committee and in particular the observations relating to the petitioner's hospital, as reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition, to be not...
D.L.F. Universal Ltd. Vs. Govt. of National Capital Territory, Delhi a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: 96(2002)DLT825; 2003(1)SLJ77(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Rule.1. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9.11.1999 of the Government of NCT of Delhi referring the disputes raised by respondent No. 5, an Architect, earlier employed with the respondent. An offer of appointment was made to the petitioner on 26.8.1993 and the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 29.9.1993. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 30.4.1998.3. Mr. Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that there is no authority with the concerned officer in the NCT of Delhi to make the said reference in view of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Saini contends that respondent No. 5 was anointed as an Architect to work in the Real Estate Division in terms of the appointment letter dated 29.9.1993 and from the first day itself was working at Gurgaon. It is further stated that compa...
Hotel Corporation of India Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi87; 2003(67)DRJ276
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. CM 2391/2002 is an application moved by the petitioner, seeking directions for staying the operation of communication dated 9.2.2002, addressed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and for permitting the petitioner to operate its bank account No. 7001 at New Delhi maintained with respondent State Bank of India.2. It may be noted that the writ petition had come up for admission before the Court on 21.2.2002, when notice to show cause was directed to be issued for 14.3.2002 as well as notice was directed to be issued in CM. 2165/2002 for stay. Process fee was not filed and the present application (CM.2391/2002) has been moved, seeking an ex parte stay at this stage of letter dated 9.2.2002 and for directions to operate the Bank account of petitioner with respondent No. 1.3. As the matter has been extensively argued, the entire writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of parties.4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar submitted t...
Mirabai Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hathway Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi433
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff herein has filed several suits as against different defendants, almost on the same subject matter. In the said suits the plaintiff has also sought for temporary injunction, as prayed for in the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making the same operative till the final disposal of the suits. As the contents of the said applications are almost similar and as the issues are also similar, I propose to take up all the applications filed by the plaintiff herein, together and dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.2. The plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff carries on the business of film production and that recently it was engaged in the production venture of the film MONSOON WEDDING, which was completed and was ready for screening, when the present suits were filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.3. The defendant herein are all cable television network operators providing cable te...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »