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.
Commissioner of Customs, Icd, New Vs. KorIn India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT360TriDel
1. In these two appeals arising out of a common order-in-Appeal filed by the Revenue and other filed by M/s. Korin India Ltd. - the issue involved is the availability of refund to M/s. Korin India Ltd. 2. Shri Naveen Mullick submitted that M/s. Korin India Ltd. (KIL in short) imported machinery for production of automotive rear axle/spares and filed Bill of Entry dated 17-8-96; that they were directed to clear the goods provisionally on furnishing of the security calculated at 5% of the value which they did; that subsequently, the enquiry against them was dropped by the Department and Bill of Entry was finally assessed on 14-8-1998, that they, therefore, filed the Refund claim for refund of Rs. 18,31,806/-deposited as security on 17-8-98; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order dated 26-10-1998 while sanctioning the amount of Rs. 18,31,806/- ordered the credit of the same in the Consumer Welfare Fund; that the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order dated 22-4-99 set asid...
Kothari Synthetic Indus. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT558TriDel
1. Both the above captioned appeals have been directed against the impugned order-in-original dated 16-4-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II, vide which he has affirmed the duty with equal amount of penalty and another penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as detailed therein, against the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Grey Fabrics' falling under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 and also processing of Cotton Hosiery Fabrics falling under Chapter 60 of the CETA. On 8-1-1998, the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises and on physical verification of the finished goods as well as the goods in process and grey fabrics, an excess of 40,000 mtrs. of processed fabrics was noticed. A separate show cause notice in respect of that fabric, which was seized, was issued (that show cause notice is not the subject matter of present appeals). Thereafter, the Officers visited the premises of transport company known as M/s. Gupta Transport Corporati...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Steel Strips and Wheels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC215
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reversed the order-in-original of the Asstt. Commissioner who disallowed the modvat credit to the respondents for having failed to produce the duplicate for transport/original copies of invoices, and claimed modvat credit on the attested copies of the invoices.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit after reversing the order of the Asstt. Commissioner on the ground that the certificate attested and issued by ranges of origin were produced by the respondents as duplicate, and original copies of the invoices were lost. But it has not been disputed that on the basis of mere certificates, the modvat credit could not be allowed to the respondents unless they were able to prove the loss of the duplicate or original invoices. There is nothing in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that such a loss was proved by the respondents in accordan...
S. Rama Rao Vs. the Managing Director, Fci and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)343; 97(2002)DLT141; 2002(62)DRJ176; 2003(1)SLJ143(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging victimisation and mala fide for approaching the Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, : AIR1996SC448 held as under:- 'Even if a Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation roaster than his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is promoted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate regains his seniority over such earlier promoted Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe promoted Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe candidate. The earlier promotion of the schedule caste/schedule tribe candidate in such a situation does not confer upon him seniority over the general candidate even though the general candidate is promoted later to that category.' 4. The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court of India on 10th October, 1995. However, the respondent i...
Daya Devi Vs. Angoori Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)697; AIR2002Delhi295; 96(2002)DLT639; 2002(63)DRJ68
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Though this suit the plaintiff has sought the partition of the property bearing No. 3851, Gali Churiwalan, Prem Narain Road, Chawri Bazar, Delhi on account of her being one of the legal heirs of the deceased owner Smt. Parwati Devi who was mother of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1-Rajo Devi was another daughter. Defendants 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Smt. Rajo Devi. Defendant No. 8 Bal Kishan who is the son of defendant No. 1 was imp leaded on the plea raised by defendant No. 1 in the written statement that Smt. Parwati Devi had adopted him when he was hardly five years old and had executed a Willbequeathing the suit property in his favor on 31st January, 1976. 2. However, there is no dispute that Parwati Devi was the absolute owner of the suit property as defendants themselves have pleaded that Shri Basdev, the husband of Smt. Parwati Devi had executed a Will dated 24th June, 1949 in her favor. Parwati Devi executed the Will in favor of defendant No. 1 on 31st Janua...
R.K. Gaur Vs. the Government of National Capital Territory and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)645; 97(2002)DLT413
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has contended that he has been requesting the respondent to merge his post of Care Taker in the Ministerial staff of the equivalent post in the office of District & Sessions Judge and the respondent had taken more than 20 years in passing the routine orders under Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in as much a though the petitioner joined the service as a Caretaker in the office of District Judge on 31.3.1978, the relevant order has been passed on 11.10.1999. 4. It is relevant to state that in view of certain other proceedings initiated by the petitioner the matter in issue had been referred to a Committee of Judges. The Committee of Judges examined the controversy in question and gave report on 21.3.2001. The operative portion of the order reads as under: 'We questioned the Administration Branch is there nay other person working wh...
Bom Bahadur Thapa Vs. United Commercial Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)574; 96(2002)DLT801; (2002)IIILLJ1011Del
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Rule.2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The only question which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the judgment of the trial court dated 22nd February, 2000 should be construed as a case of clean acquittal or a acquittal as a consequence of benefit of doubt. The relevant para 11 is as under:/p>'11. In the light of best possible evidence not brought on record. In the light of : 1984CriLJ1738 and : 1987CriLJ1869 ; the benefit of doubt tilts in favor of the accused. Accordingly the accused is held not guilty and acquittedof the charged offence under Section 381 IPC.'4. Thus though the expression used is that 'the benefit of doubt tilts in favor of the accused' the final order is that accused is not held guilty and acquitted of the charges under Section 381 IPC. 5. A perusal of the order would show the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The same is as under:'9. PW-...
Chet Ram Through Lrs Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)289
R.C. Jain, J. 1. This Civil Revision is directed against theorder of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi dated 1stFebruary, 2000 by which an application under Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission to file and get an amended cite plan of the suit property exhibited in place of the already exhibited site plan of the suit property has been declined. 2. A suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the father/predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner is pending trial and is at an advanced stage. The petitioner earlier filed an application for amendment of the plaintiff, inter alia, seeking amendment of the site plan as an objection was raised by the defendant about the correctness of the site plan filed by the plaintiff Along with the plaint. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide an order dated 4.1.1989. However,. it appear that the amended site plan which found mention in the application for amendment and in regard ...
P. Kumari and ors. Vs. N.D.M.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)637; 96(2002)DLT776
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against theorder of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhidated 15.5.2001 by which an application under Order 6Rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of thedefendant-respondent/NDMC seeking amendment of writtenstatement has been allowed.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts givingrise to the present revision are that the petitionersherein had filed a suit for declaration that they arethe lessees of the defendant in respect to respectiveshops in Palika Bazar and in the alternative theirlicense has been renewed on or about 29.10.1983 andthe defendants were estopped from imposing any freshterms and conditions and also for permanent injunctionfor restraining the defendant-NDMC from taking anyaction with respect to the cancellation of the licenseand dispossession of the plaintiffs from the shops inquestion. The suit was initially filed in the HighCourt and was contested by the defendant and trialalso proceeded in the High Court untill it reached at...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Hotu Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)646; 97(2002)DLT135
R.C. Jain, J.1. This Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.8.79 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi thereby allowing the First Appeal filed by the respondent against the dismissal of his suit.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent herein had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant-MCD for restraining them from recovering a duty of Rs. 1505/- on the transfer of a shop No. 57, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi levied under the provisions of Section 147(2)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking its payment by means of a notice. The said levy and demand of the duty was stated to be illegal, ultra virus and against the principles of natural justice firstly because no stamp duty was payable under the Indian Stamps Act or was livable on the transfer of leasehold rights of the property in dispute under the Act and that plaintiff was not...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »