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.
Kailash Nath Singhal S/O Late Shri Baij Nath Agarwal, R/O H/192, Shast ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)38; 97(2002)DLT602; 2002(64)DRJ209; (2002)IILLJ1048Del
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1.The Appellant is dissatisfied with an order dated 30th August, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition being CW No.3830/1999. The Appellant was compulsorily retired from the services of the Punjab National Bank (for short the Bank) on 21st February, 1991. The compulsory retirement was a punishment for misconduct. The punishment has been accepted by the Appellant and is not a matter in issue. Subsequently however, the Bank came out with a pension scheme and, as a result of the punishment, the Appellant was not entitled to pension and that is why he filed a writ petition in this Court claiming pension. thereforee, the issue before us is whether the denial of pension is legally sustainable or not.2.Sometime in the early 1990s, negotiations took place between the workmen and employees of various banks and the Indian Banks Association. During these negotiations, an agreement was reached between the parties whereby the Indian Bank...
Yogesh JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: [2004]118CompCas758(Delhi)
1. Ms. Enakshi Kulkshreshta, the counsel for the applicant requests that she may be allowed to withdraw the application. Request allowed. The application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.CW No. 2876 of 2001 2. Writ petitioner is seeking prohibitory order against the respondent prohibiting them to regulate the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock broker and sub-broker) Rules, 1992 SEBI Rules, 1992). He also wants Regulations 1992 to be declared illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio. He has further challenged the validity of order of prohibition for 'Sale and then purchase of shares'. According to the Petitioner by virtue of regulation excessive powers have been delegated to the SEBI. Regulation 1992 is also against the principles of natural justice.3. Main thrust of the petitioner's arguments is that the SEBI has framed various rules and regulations which have been framed without following the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 ('the ...
Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. Vs. Daljeet Singh, Trading and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ80
Dr. Mukundakam Sharnia, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the application seeking for an ad-interim injunction.2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff as against the defendant seeking for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark and copyright of the plaintiff in respect of the trade mark KIRLOSKAR & COPELAND and also for a decree against passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff and also for delivery, destruction of the counterfeit trade mark KIRLOSKAR & COPELAND, if any, with the defendant and also for rendition of accounts and for costs of the suit. It is alleged that the defendant is selling and/or offering for sale the re-conditioned compressors and its components under the trade mark KIRLOSKAR & COPELAND.3. While issuing summons in the suit an ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, on 1.5.2001 restraining the defendants from sel...
S.S. Associates Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Del)152
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been directed by the assessed against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-3-2000 pertaining to assessment year 1996-97.2. Grounds of appeal No. 1 to 6 relate to the disallowance of Rs. 41,32,250 claimed by the assessed on account of advertisement expenses.3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessed is a firm, consisting of two partners. By an agreement with the Government of Manipur it had taken the task of sole distribution of Manipur Government State lotteries for whole of India. As per agreement, the assessed was paying royalty to the Government of Manipur. However, as the task assigned as per agreement had to be accomplished in those states where there was no ban on the sale of state lotteries, it entered into stockiest arrangement with six parties all over India for distribution of lottery tickets in those arrearswhere the sale of lottery tickets was not banned. As per clause 16 of the agreement (which is similar with all the...
Global Shiptrade (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT152TriDel
1. Order-in-Original dated 25-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant who claims to have been engaged in the trade of ship-breaking materials imported a consignment of Heavy Melting Scrap weighing 271.140 MTs under two Bills of Entry dated 22-8-2001 and 5-9-2001. The assessable value in the Bills of Entry were declared at the rate of US $ 105 PMT and US $ 108 PMT respectively. The Customs Authorities took the view that out of the total quantity of 271.140 MTs, a quantity of 12 MT was melting scrap and the remaining quantity was cut pieces of 'old/used serviceable welded pipes' ranging between 2' to 10' in length. It was proposed to classify the cut pieces of pipes under Customs Tariff Heading 7306.50 and not under 7204.99 as claimed by the appellant.Since the import of old/used goods are restricted under Para 5.3 of the current import policy, it was proposed that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section lll(d) of ...
Para Coat Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT181TriDel
1. M/s. Para Coat Products Ltd. have only challenged the penalty confirmed against them by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order whereas the Revenue has challenged the availment of Modvat credit in respect of rejected goods.2. Shri Pankaj Mullick, learned consultant, submitted that the as-sessee has two factories and manufactures Auto parts and availed of exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 for the clearances of excisable goods made from both the units during the financial year 2000-2001; that while declaring the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year 1999-2000, they did not include the value of goods which were received back under the provisions of Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules as they bona fidely believed that the same was not includible in the value of the clearance; that they, on being pointed out, had voluntarily paid the duty Rs. 3,71,505 and they never contested the levy of the duty...
Praja Mechanicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT707TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Praja Mechanicals Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 43,44,416 and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and penalty amounting to Rs. 10 lakh under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned senior Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture conveyors and parts thereof; that the size of the conveyors manufactured by them varies from 8 metres to 640 metres in length and it is not possible to transport the same as a single unit under a single invoice; that the conveyor is being supplied in piecemeal in different lots/batches depending upon the length of the conveyor and its convenient carriage; that as and when they clear only parts of conveyor they pay duty at, the rate applicable to parts under Heading 84.31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that wherever the purchase orders are for conveyor system, it was factually erected a...
Ginvic Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT789TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Ginvic Steels Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether Central Excise duty is payable by them on the alloy steel ingots manufactured by the job worker out of the raw materials given by them under the Notification No. 214/86-C.E.2. Shri Gagan Kohli, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture alloy steel forged products; that they were sending raw materials to job-worker for conversion into alloy steel ingots; that three separate show cause notices were issued to them; that under show cause notice dated 8-5-98, the facility of job work was proposed to be disallowed; that as per notice dated 25-5-98, the duty was demanded on the ground that they were not entitled to get the job work done; that the notice dated 17-12-97 was issued for demanding duty on ingots manufactured on job work basis. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that they had not received the notice dated 17-12-97 which is the subject matter of present Appeal; that when t...
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT374TriDel
1. In these applications M/s. South Eastern Coalfields have sought waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty confirmed against them and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise under three different Adjudication Orders.2. Ms. S.S. Wandile, learned Advocate submitted that the Central Electrical and Mechanical Workshop under the control of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was established at Korba in 1967 in order to facilitate repair of all mining machinery and equipments used in the adjacent coal mines; that the Applicants availed exemption from duty of excise under Notification No. 182/87-C.E., dated 10-7-1987 which provides exemption to all goods manufactured in Workshops situated within the precincts of mines and also intended for use in mines; that the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Central Coalfield Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur, Final Order Nos. 792-795/CAL/99, dated 18-11-99 has extended the benefit of said notification holding that the workshop can be said to be situate...
Kabra Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC565
1. M/s. Kabra Investment (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved with the Order No. Commr (AV48/AHD-II/2001 dated 10.7.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Appeals.2. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture HDPE/PP sacks and avail Modvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that in the month of June 1994, they purchased PP/HDPE fabrics and availed of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,80,280; that the fabrics in the running length of Rolls was cut into the required sizes in their factory; that on account of labour dispute which led to strike; they could not convert the said cut pieces into sacks; that they sold those cut pieces of HDPE/PP fabrics to other party on payment of concessional rate of duty, appellants being a small scale unit; that the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No (sic)/98 dated (sic) disallowed the Modvat Credit and directed them to reverse/pay the same and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 holding that they...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »