Delhi Court March 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.
Dharam Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)65; 97(2002)DLT538
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed assailing the order of an Additional District Judge (Land Acquisition Court) dated 18.9.1997 by which he had dismissed the application of the petitioner and had allowed the application of the respondents No. 2 to 6 for their substitution in place of their deceased mother Smt. Khazani Devi in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act pending before him.2. The facts leading to this revision petition, briefly stated, are that Mr. Jagdish, father of the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 6, was the owner of certain agricultural land in village Rithala which was acquired by respondent No. 1. Union of India. Mr. Jagdish was aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector so he preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is pending before the learned Additional District Judge. On the death of Sh. Jagdish, th...
Shri Bhoop Singh Tyagi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)419; 2002CriLJ2872; 97(2002)DLT374; 2002(62)DRJ870
Khan, J.1. Petitioner had let out its premises at U-38-A, Shakarpur, Delhi to one company called M/s. Shrestha Priya Finance & Investment Limited. The company wound up and a case of cheating (FIR No. 101/2000) was registered against it under Sections 406/420/34 IPC at P.S. Shakarpur on the complaint of some investors. Its office at the premises was said to have been sealed and then again re-opened and its office record was transferred to Malkhana of Police Station. It also transpires that when investigation of FIR No. 101/2000 was transferred to Crime Branch, petitioner was found in possession of the premises.2. Be that as it may, it was in this background that petitioner was booked in two FIRs - FIR No. 428/2000 under Sections 454/380 IPC and FIR No. 433/2000 under Section 188 IPC. He challenged both FIRs in this petition. The first one was quashed by court order dated 4.9.2001 but the second one survived and now it is to be seen whether this would also go.3. This FIR under Section 18...
Sajani Khanna and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)185; 96(2002)DLT815
ORDER1. This petition is filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated 22.2.2002, whereby the learned Judge has directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs with the complainant to cover her maintenance and that of the child of the family being pre-condition of grant of pre-arrest bail.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. Their premises and lockers were searched pursuant to the complaintnt's allegations that her Estri Dhan is lying with the petitioners. They apprehended arrest on the allegations made by the complainant and moved the Court of Sessions by way of application for pre-arrest bail. The application was ultimately disposed of with conditions as stated above. The tenor of the order proceeds as if one of the petitioners is the husband of the complainant and it is his moral duty to maintain his wife and child. It appears, thereforee, that the Judge has factually ...
East West Rescue (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Del)343
ORDERKeshaw Prasad, A.M.The appeal has been filed by the assessed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-12-1998, pertaining to assessment year 1994-95. The first ground of appeal relates to deduction under section 80-O of the Act.2. The assessed- company provides professional services in the field of medicines. It is headed by Dr. N.P.S. Chawla and Dr. (Miss) Devjit Kinberlay Chawla, as directors. The assessed- company got the necessary expertise in the matter of providing emergency medical assistance to any person anywhere in India on call. It has on its own panel several qualified doctors who always remain on call, provide necessary medical services wherever required and give professional information to foreign insurers. It is patronised by almost all the insurance companies in the world and some important select embassies of foreign countries, though no formal agreement exist in some of the cases. After providing required treatment they are also provided qualifie...
Cit Vs. Vishnu Neman
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: [2002]123TAXMAN478(Delhi)
Following questions have been raised for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed-trust was not hit by the provisions of section 13(2)(h), read with section 13(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessed-trust was entitled to exemption under section 11 in respect of its income amounting to Rs. 91,297 ?'2. It is accepted at the bar that the aforementioned questions are covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Sir Sobha Public Charitable Trust (2001) 250 ITR 475 as also a decision of a Division Bench of This court in CIT v. Sir Shri Ram Foundation (2001) 250 ITR 55 .3. In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, the question referred is answered in the...
Paras Traders Vs. Bharat Industrial Corporation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC794(Del)
S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard. 2. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the respondent. Mr. Ajay Sahni stated that the respondent had applied for registration of trademark 'Chetak' with star, having a monogram BIC in the central bid for only two goods, namely, ink and gum paste and it is restricted to the State of Haryana.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chetan Sharma, in response to the statement of Mr. Ajay Sahni, stated that the petitioner had got a registration in class 16 of trademark 'Chetak' for exercise books, office files and mathematical instruments on all India basis, learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that in case the respondent confines himself to the use of trademark on goods as permitted by the Registrar of trademark and continues their trade to Haryana, the appellant would not press this application.4. It learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ajay Sahni, is not ready to make any statement that the respondent would not supply goods beyon...
Cce Vs. Haryana Sheet Glass Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC489Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents manufacture sheet glass falling under Chapter sub-heading 2002.20. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Sonepat, vide his order dated 30.9.1997 denied them the modvat credit totalling amounting to Rs. 2,22,421.94 availed by them on certain items as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The party filed an appeal and the same is allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, vide her order dated 12.10.2000.2. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi. I have heard Shri B.C. Mahey, ld. JDR for the appellants and Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate for the respondents. The items in question on which the modvat credit is sought to be denied to the respondents as capital goods are Siemens switch fuse, electric goods for power switching machine, contractor size-I, steel chimney, pump model RF-40, transmitter recorder, controller, totlizer, compression springs, rubber diapharm, 4923 glade 4...
Vi John Beauty Tech Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC432
1. In these four appeals, arising out of a common Order, the issue involved is whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Vi John Beauty Tech and M/s. Vi John Beauty Products (VJBT and VJBP in short) are not eligible to the benefit of SSI exemption as the goods were bearing the brand name of another person and whether the Appellants suppressed the production and removed the goods clandestinely without payment of duty.2.1 Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Appellant companies VJBT and VJBP manufacture cosmetics; that the brand names of their products are as under: 2.2 He further, mentioned that the goods manufactured by them do bear their name and address; that there is another manufacturing concern, namely, M/s. Maja Cosmetics who manufacture cosmetics bearing the brand name "VI-JOHN"; belonging to Mrs. Mohinder Kaur; that the said concern avails of the benefit of exemption Notification; that the Revenue's case is that words 'VI-JOHN' in the nam...
Abc Roadways Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT186TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original of the Commissioner of Customs dated 2/-2-2001 vide which he had ordered absolute confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 1,50,11,900/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under : Acting on a specific information, officers of the Headquarters, Customs Preventive Branch, New Customs House, New Delhi, conducted search at the office-cum-godown of the appellants who common carriers, on 13-11-1999 in accordance with law in the presence of Shri Darshan Lal, Loading Assistant and two independent witnesses. As a result of that search, 82 packages which contained 58256 pcs. of ball bearings of various foreign make and brand valued at Rs. 1,50,11,900/- were recovered. On demand, Shri Darshan Lal, could not produce any document, other than the GRs and invoices for the lawful import/acquisition/possession of ...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Samrat Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT386TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The proceedings in the present cases started with the issuance of show cause notice to the applicant for denying the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that they were clearing the goods under the brand name 'New Ship' which is similar to the brand name 'Ship' belonging to M/s. Ship Switchgoar India Ltd. The adjudicating authority dropped the show cause notice.Revenue filed the appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that demand is time barred and gave a finding that the goods cleared by the respondents were not of the same brand which were used by M/s. Ship Switchgear India Ltd. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods manufactured by the respondents is cleared under the brand name of 'New Ship' which is similar and in the same style under which the other manufacturer M/s.Ship Switchgear India Ltd is cleari...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »