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.
Sree Kumar R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)690; 97(2002)DLT347; [2003(97)FLR709]; 2003(1)SLJ200(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. Rule.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner are officers and employees working in different capacities at different centres of Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Limited - respondent No. 2. The performance of respondent No. 2 apparently started suffering from 1991 onwards and in 1996 the case of respondent No. 2 was referred to Disinvestment Commission. The Disinvestment Commission submitted its report and the case of respondent No. 2 corporation was also referred to Board For Industrial And Financial Reconstruction (for short the BIFR) under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short the said SICA) in December, 1999. The BIFR declared respondent No. 2 corporation as a sick industrial company in terms of the provision of Section 3(1)(o) of the said Act. The petitioner and other officers of the respondent No. 2 corporation also moved the ...
Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)466; 2002(62)DRJ858
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The following observations of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Rallia Ram, : [1964]3SCR164 , have not been varied and still hold the field despite the passage of forty years, and numerous subsequent judgments on the subject.'An award being a decision of an arbitrator whether a lawyer or a layman chosen by the parties, and entrusted with power to decided a dispute submitted to him is ordinarily not liable to be challenged on the ground that it is erroneous. In order to make arbitration effective and the awards enforceable, machinery is devised for lending the assistance of the ordinary Courts. The Court is also entrusted with power to modify or correct the award on the ground of imperfect form or clerical errors, or decision on questions not referred, which are severable from those referred. The Court has also power to remit the award when it has left some matters referred undetermined, or when the award is indefinite, or where the objection to the legality of th...
Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. State of Ha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)423; 97(2002)DLT377; 2002(62)DRJ284
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These Letter Patent Appeals having arisen out of a common judgment and involving similar question of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. However, we may consider the fact of the matter from the file of LPA 66/2001 arising out of CWP 1950/2000.3. The petitoner is a registered association. Its member allegedly have entered into agreements with the fourth respondent for purchase of freehold plots at Okhla Enclave in the State of Haryana. The respondent No.4 allegedly had booked thousands of plots without obtaining requisite license as is mandatorily required in terms of Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act'). Allegedly, the respondent No.4 kept the purchasers at dark to the effect that although specific plots were being booked, approval for development and setting up of colony itself had not been obtained in terms o...
S.V. Muthye Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)381; 2002CriLJ3219; 96(2002)DLT718; 2002(62)DRJ398
K.S. Gupta, J.1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner who is one of the partners of M.P. Agricultural Corporation, Jabalpur seeks quashment of complaint No. 55/1 of 1994 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1872 (for short the 'Act') pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Complaint was filed on 1st November 1994 by respondent No. 2 alleging that Fairfield Engineers (P) Ltd had been supplying accessories and parts including Disel generating sets to the petitioner-accused for which bills / invoices were being raised. Against bill No. 832 dated 22nd October 1993 for Rs. 57,700/- and bill No. 831 dated 22nd October 1993 for Rs. 79,970.20, the petitioner issued cheque Nos. 0957729 dated 10th March 1994 for Rs. 57,700/-, 0957731 dated 15th March 1994 for Rs. 40,000/- and 0957732 dated 20th March 1994 for Rs. 39,970.20 in favor of respondent No. 2. All these cheques were drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Jabalpur. Said cheque No. 0957729 dated 10th Marc...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sahdev Brothers and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)311; 2002(2)ARBLR176(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT902
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11th March, 1981 whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the Objections to the award filed by the DDA and made the award dated 3rd May, 1991 a rule of the Court and directed that the decree in terms of the award be passed.2. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Delhi Development Authority has filed this appeal.3. The learned counsel for the appellant restricted his challenge to the findings on counter-claims 5, 6 and 7 of the arbitrator which were upheld by the Single Judge. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the arbitrator was in error in rejecting the counter-claims of the DDA and learned Single Judge was in error in upholding the Award.4. Counter-claim No. 5 is for Rs. 1.50 lakhs for the quantity of the material found short during the technical examination of the work. The learned arbitrator, in a detailed speaking Award, has mentioned that work was rescinded in Dec...
Hcl Infosystems Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)76TTJ(Del)505
ORDERBy the BenchThese appeals of the assessed are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.2. Since they involve a common issue, they are consolidated, heard together and disposed of by a common order, for the sake of convenience.3. The assessed formerly known as HCL Ltd./HCL-Hewlett Packard Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on 17-4-1986, under the name and style 'HCL Limited' (hereinafter referred to as HCLL). It took over the existing and running businesses of various companies which were amalgamated with the assessed under the scheme of amalgamation formulated and approved by the respective High Courts of Judicature.4. The assessed and Hewlett-Packard Company, USA (hereinafter referred to as HP), entered into agreement dated 10-7-1992, by which the Licensing and Technical Assistance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as LTAA), dated 16-4-1990, between HP and HPI was novated in favor of the asses...
Commissioner of Customs, New Vs. H.D. Shoes International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT405TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this application for condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeal on the ground that the relevant papers were misplaced due to frequent transfer of Dy. Commissioner and Addl.Commissioner during the relevant period.3. During the pendency of application, the Revenue filed a list of dates wherein the Revenue mentioned that there is transfer of five officers during the relevant period and the impugned order was lost.There is nothing on record to show that whether any inquiry was conducted regarding loss of the relevant papers or any responsibility was fixed.4. We find that to condone the delay, not only there must be cause but cause must be sufficient which prevented the appellants to file the appeal within the period of limitation. We find that the reasons explained in the COD application were not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed....
Gaurav Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT63TriDel
1. In the Impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had held, "In view of the fact that the CLRI had categorically ruled out the use of the goods as insole materials and the concession is available only for insoles and midsoles for use in the leather industry, the order of the lower authority, denying the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 23/98 to the goods imported, is correct". He accordingly rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants imported certain goods describing them as insole material sheets. The importer claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No.23/98. Samples were drawn from the consignment and sent for test and opinion to CLRI who opined that the samples could not be used as insole sheet material in shoe making. The Assistant Commissioner denied them the benefit of Notification No. 23/98. Against this order of the Assis...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Vardhman Special Steels
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC78Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit under Rule 57Q to the respondents in respect of the following goods :- 2. Examined the records and heard both sides. Ld. JDR Sh. H.C. Verma reiterates the grounds of the appeal. Ld. Advocate Sh. Siddharath Sen argues in support of the findings of the lower appellate, authority and relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal :-Nahar International Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2000 (123) E.L.T. 767] (in support of the respondents' case that Teaming compound/ Hot Top, Foundry Fluxes and chemicals and Graphite Stopper Head are eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q.Panchmahals Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodam [2001 (138) E.L.T. 115 (T) = 2001 (46) RLT 842] (in support of the plea that foundry fluxes are eligible for Modvat credit, as inputs, if not as capital goods).CCE, Meerut v. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2000 (119) E.L.T. 197] (in support of the plea that transformer oil is a lubricant eligi...
Cce Vs. Standard Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC318
1. Revenue has filed these four appeals alongwith four stay petitions.In the stay petitions, there is a request for staying the operation of the impugned order. It has been submitted in the stay petition that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors 2001 (42) RLT 429 has not been accepted by the Department and appeal filed there against has been admitted by the Apex Court, Ld. DR submits that according to Explanation I to the new Rules notified under Notification No. 14/2000 dt. 1.3.2000, length of galleries is not to be included while determining the capacity of chambers clearly shows that earlier the intention of the Govt. was to include the length of galleries. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner in the Order-in-Original.2. Brief facts of the case leading the present proceedings are that the respondents are independent Textile Processors paying duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the relevant rule.T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »