Delhi Court February 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.
J.S. Constructions Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)525; 2002(62)DRJ269
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Both the parties have filed objections to the the award. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of claim No.1 whereas the respondent DDA has assailed the award in respect of every claim. As many as 11 claims were preferred by the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator.2. It is needless to say that the Court does not sit in Appeal while examining the award and as such should refrain form re-appraising or re-appreciating the evidence and the material on record. Unless the Arbitrator travels beyond the terms of the agreement or ties himself down to such a legal proposition which when examined is found wholly unsound or ignores any material document which has significant bearing to the result of the award itself, interference is uncalled for.3. Claim No. 2 is on account of reimbursement of wage rate of labour under Clause 10C of the agreement.4. The main objection of the respondent is that the Arbitrator has ignored the terms of Clause 10C, according to which it wa...
Shakil Ahmad @ Pappu and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)886; 96(2002)DLT586; 2002(82)ECC530
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by Shakil Ahmad @ Pappu and Wasim Ahmad, accused-appellants is directed against the judgment dated 28th April 1997 and order dated 1st May 1997 of an Additional Sessions Judge convicting them under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (for short the 'Act') and sentencing to RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac each. In default of payment of fine, appellants are further to undergo RI for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 27th January 1994 at about 10.30 AM, a secret informer intimated Inspector J.S. Rana (PW-8) that Shakil Ahmed, Wasim Ahmed and Kamal Babu who are having charas in huge quantity, would pass through Irwin Hospital in Ambassador car No. UP-53-B-9458 between 11.00 to 12.00 noon. After recording this information in the DD at No. 11, PW-8 intimated about it to ACP H.L. Manaktala, PW-5. On direction of PW-5 a raiding party was organized by PW-8 wherein HC Ram Bahu, PW-7, HC Jai Bhagwan, PW-6, W.HC Ve...
Rear Admiral(Retd) Balakrishnan Ravi Manon Vs. Ms. Vandana Jhingan and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1051; 97(2002)DLT286; 2002(62)DRJ318
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This order will dispose of two petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 7th December, 1996 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara summoning the petitioner for the offences under Sections 354/509/500/506 IPC for the alleged sexual harassment of the complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts are the respondent Ms. Vandana Jhingan filed a complaint stating that after doing M.A. in Public Administration and Post Graduate Diploma in Marketing and Sales from Delhi University in 1986, she was appointed as Assistant in M/s. Goa shipyard Limited for Delhi Office only. She worked under four different Chairmen and Managing Directors without any problem. On 8th November, 1994, Balakrishnan Ravi Menon was appointed as the CMD. Akheel Sheikh was the DGM (P&A;). In the complaint several incidents of sexual harassment and attempt to outrage her modesty between October 1994 and 3rd April, 1995 were detailed. It is alleged that at the time...
Manish Bahal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)281; 97(2002)DLT509; 2002(62)DRJ556
Khan, (J) 1. Petitioner was first detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 for one year by order dated 17.5.1999 passed by R-3 to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order was approved on 20.5.1999. Petitioner made a representation against it which was rejected and the order was confirmed by R-1 on 21.6.1999.2. Petitioner challenged this in Crl.W.809/98 which was allowed and his detention order quashed by court order dated 14.12.1999. He was consequently released from detention pursuant thereto after serving approximately seven months' detention.3. Respondents, however, took appeal against this order before the Supreme Court which over-turned it by judgment dated 9.7.2001 holding thus:-'On the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we are constrained to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the high Court is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is all...
Ganges Printing Ink and ors. Vs. Mr. Sardari Lal Duggal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT22
Khan, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 was the tenant of R-1 at 1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. It seems that some disputes arose between them and R-1 moved some application before the Calcutta High Court in a pending proceedings between petitioner No. 1 and Punjab National Bank which was rejected by order dated 5.6.1996 with liberty to R-1 to take appropriate eviction proceedings against petitioner under law. Thereafter R-1 filed Suit No. 1778/96 for possession of first floor of the premises before this court in which he filed a replication allegedly admitting payment of rent by petitioner up to April 1996. It is also alleged that R-1 admitted in these proceedings that rent for the premises was tendered by money order up to March 1997 which was not accepted but suppressing all these facts R-1 later filed an eviction petition before Additional Rent Controller for eviction of petitioner from the premises and had obtained eviction order dated 2.7.1999.2. Petitioner's case is that R-1 had misled ...
Shri Prithvi Raj Bhalla Vs. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi539; 99(2002)DLT139
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of possession of the open plot with a boundary wall and flooring over half portions numbering WZ/ 36-A, (New Municipal No. 116-B), Ganesh Nagar Extn., Najafgarh Road, New Delhi) Along with a decree for payment of Rs. 30,000/- as damages for use and occupation of the plot.2. It is stated in the plaint that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff namely, late Smt. Sushila Devi Bhalla, who is the mother of the plaintiff inducted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the aforesaid suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- payable in advance on or about 10th day of each English calendar months. The aforesaid lease was granted for 11 months in the first instance which was renewable at the option of the lessee for a further period of 11 months and thereafter with the mutual consent of both the parties on terms and conditions being agreed upon at that time. Clause 7 of the said deed provi...
GodwIn Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT784TriDel
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order dt. 17-7-2001 held as under : "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the submissions made in the appeal as well as at the time of personal hearing. Appellant opted for compounded levy scheme w.e.f. Sept. '97 and their duty liability was fixed at Rs. 1,66,556/-. In the month of Nov. '97, they paid only Rs. 85,000/-. I find once the capacity of the unit is fixed by Commissioner, the assessee was required to pay the Central Excise Duty calculated on the basis of their production capacity. In the instant case the appellants unit's capacity was fixed by the Commissioner w.e.f. Sept. '97 and they were required to pay Rs. 1,66,556/- per month. In Nov. '97, the appellant informed their Range Office that they had closed their factory till 16-11-97 and had started the production from 17-11-97. Hence from 17-11-97 to 30-11-97 they paid CE duty of Rs. 85,000/- on the plea that there was no production from 1-11-97 to 16-11-97.1 ...
Essma Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC358
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Essma Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 is available to the shoddy blankets manufactured by them.2. Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant, submitted that the Appellants are engaged in the activity of processing textile fabric on job work basis; that M/s. Essma Textile P. Ltd. sent them shoddy blankets for further processing; that the blankets did not bear any indication of identity in the form of any mark, symbol, label, signature or invented word or writing of any kind suggestive of any connection in the course between the goods and the producer or in other person; that however, for the purpose of identification and co-relation, the blankets having different specification, colour scheme, designs, etc. were described in the challans differently by names, such as Double Action, Manchester, Two Together, Minister, Teen Murti, etc.; that similarly in the invoices also the blankets ...
Commissioner of C. Ex., New Vs. Northern Minerals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC591
1. Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed these appeals against the common order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby it is held that Dhanzyme manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under sub-heading 3101.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as Plant Growth Promoter.3. The contention of the Revenue is that dhanzyme is preliminary plant growth promoter substance as it is evident from the product literature which is supplied with each packing. The constituents of dhanzyme are plant growth promoter which induce and control seed germination and flowering etc.4. We find that the issue in respect of the classification of Dhanzyme is settled by the Tribunal in the case of respondents, reported as Northern Minerals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v.Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 355 (Tri.-Del.). In this case the Tribunal held that Dhanzyme is a bio-fertiliser, being a plant growth promoter and is classifiable ...
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Vadodara
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT791TriDel
1. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Limited have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27-2-2001. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had held, "Since the appellants have not filed refund claim within the time-limit, the claim has correctly been rejected as time-barred." 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Limited (M/s. IFFCo.) are engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer. They were procuring Naphtha under CT-2 certificates with nil rate of duty under Chapter X procedure from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. During the period 8-2-98 to 11-5-98 the appellants procured duty paid naphtha for use in the turbines for generation of steam and power as the Central Excise Authority denied them CT-2 certificate in respect of such use of naphtha. The appellants paid duty amounting to Rs. 24,28,233/-. The appellants filed a refund claim on 28-10-99 seeking refund of Rs. 24,28,233/- Under Se...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »