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.
A.K.K. Oil Depot Vs. Commissioner Food Civil Supply and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)708; 97(2002)DLT133
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The respondents issued a notification for filling up the vacancy of theKerosene Oil Depot in Circle 25. In terms of the rules framed by the respondents,vacancy can only be filled by a person who is resident of the circle where the vacancyhad arisen. Petitioner applied for being allotted the license of the Kerosene OilDepot in Circle 25. The Selection Board, after interviewing the candidates hadappeared to have recommended the Kerosene Oil Depot to be allotted to thepetitioner. Petitioner requested for depositing the security amount so as to start thedepot, however, the respondents did not permit him to deposit the security amountand the oil depot was not allotted to him. Petitioner filed an appeal before theCommissioner, Food and Supplies with a prayer to allot to him the Kerosene OilDepot in Circle 25. This appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Food andSupplies on 23rd February, 2000. Petitioner filed an application on 2nd May, 2000seeking review of the order d...
Alora Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sanjay Ghai
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)139; 98(2002)DLT139; 2002(63)DRJ381
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. By virtue of the present petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act against the contemner/respondent for willful disobedience of the orders of the Court dated 10th February, 2000 and 15th February, 2000 in Suit No. 2528/98.2. A short background of the facts giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner and the respondent/condemner had entered into a compromise and on the joint application moved under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, compromise was recorded in the suit and vide orders dated 15th February, 2000 suit was decreed in terms thereof. As per the terms of the compromise, respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 36,30,200/- by way of cheques in thirty three equal monthly Installments of Rs. 1,10,000/- each. This amount was payable w.e.f. 10th March, 2000. The first two cheques of Rs. 1,10,000/- each, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured on 11th ...
Dharampal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT295
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The subject matter of these appeals is determination of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants with respect to the land situated in village Masjid Moth acquired through three separate notifications. For convenience sake and in order to avoid repetition of same and similar evidence again and again in different cases, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. For the execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi, land situated in village Masjid Moth was acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 13.9.1957. The Collector on 31.7.1961 made his award No. 1175 offering compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000/- per bigha respectively for two categories of land. Feeling dissatisfied the claimants sought reference and the Reference Court by its award dated 31.1.1970 answered the reference. Feeling dissatisfied Union o...
Smithkline Beecham and ors. Vs. Prakesh Setia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-08-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT838
ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J. S. No. 977/2001: 1. The defendants have filed the written statement. However, no reply is filed to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is on record. Accordingly, the suit shall proceed ex parte as against the defendants. At the request of Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, permission is granted to lead evidence by filing an affidavit, which shall be filed within eight weeks.LA. No. 4802/2001 : 2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying for a perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them, their agents, servants and all other persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for export, or advertising in India or overseas, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trade mark ABEN or ALBEN or any other deceptively similar variant similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff-ALBEN. 3. It is contended that the defendants have adopted the t...
Associated Bearing Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC614
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby 1173 pcs. of ball bearings recovered from the premises of M/s. Associated Bearings Corporation, were confiscated and the Commissioner of Customs gave an option to redeemed the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. One lakh. The appellants also challenged the personal penalties imposed on S/Shri B.D. Lakhotia and R.K. Lakhotia, partners of M/s. Associated Bearing Corporation.2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to an information, the business premises of M/s. Associated Bearing Corporation were searched and 1173 pcs. of ball bearing of foreign origin were recovered. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation and for imposing penalties and thereafter the adjudication order was passed.3. The contention of the appellants is that there is no evidence on record to show that ball bearings, in question, are smuggled into India. The ball bearin...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT217TriDel
1. The Revenue filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 216/2000-C, dated 20-4-2000.3. Against the final order dated 20-4-2000 passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue filed Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 26-9-2000 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on the ground that the Revenue wants to approach the Tribunal by filing a Review Petition. Now, the Revenue filed this misc.application for rectification of mistake.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal vide final order dated 20-4-2000 in Para 8 held that the contents of File No. 6 recovered from the premises were never put to the respondents in show cause notice nor this file was relied upon document in the show cause notice. The contention of the Revenue is that this file was specifically mentioned in Annexure 'B' of the show cause notice and the contents of the file were relied upon in the show cause notice.5. We find that the show...
Cce Vs. Ipf Vikram India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC381Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned Order-in-original dated 31.10.2000 vide which the Commissioner has dropped the demand of Rs. 23,21,245.09 against the respondent.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of detergent. They are receiving detergent powder in bulk from M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. for re-packing the same in small packings under brand name of either Sunlight Detergent powder or 'Surf of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. They are paying duty on such small packing under the category of maximum retail price. They are paying duty on such small packing under the category of maximum retail price. They also availed modvat credit of the disputed amount. They were, however, served with show cause notice that they did not show any wastage either in RT-12 returns or in RT-23A Part-I account maintained by them. Therefore, they could not avail modvat credit on the inputs gone in waste while re-packing the bulk detergent powder in small packings and they were ...
Bharti Systel Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC575
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,12,15,180.2. In the impugned order the lower authorities held that telephone sets cleared to Department of Telecommunication by the applicants are assessable to duty at the maximum retail price under Section 4A, CE Act.3. The contention of the applicant is that as per the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the duty is to be paid on the maximum retail price on the goods which are required to print MRP on the packing under the provisions of standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Section 34 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules, 1977 provides that the Rule shall not apply to any packages containing a commodity, if, the marking on the packages indicates that it has been specially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing any industry. The contention of the applicant is that as the telephone clear...
A.K. Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ382CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Memorandum issued by the respondents dated 9.11.2000 and order dated 8.12.2000, whereby his basic pay fixed earlier at Rs. 600 w.e.f. 21.1.1983 by order dated 16.6.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900, has been lowered to Rs. 575 + Rs. 5 (personal pay). The respondents have stated that the pay of the applicant had been erroneously fixed and accordingly the subsequent re-fixation of pay on the basis of revision of pay scale/ promotion etc., was also wrong. They have stated that the applicant's pay is, therefore, proposed to be refixed (a) in the grade of Research Assistant (RA) (Sc.) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 under FR 22(a)(ii), and (b) on promotion to the grade of Assistant Research Officer (ARO)(Sc.) w.e.f. 15.5.1987 under FR22(a)(i). The respondents have stated in the impugned order dated 9.11.2000, that on implementation of the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission and financial upgradation w.e.f. 9.8.1999 under the Assured Car...
J.R. Gupta Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)687; 2002(62)DRJ243; (2002)IIILLJ979Del
Vijender Jain, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated 12.7.93 vide which the petitioner was awarded major penalty of reducing him to initial stage in time scale of MMGS-II. 2. Mr. R. Venkata Ramani learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.8.90 for making some contradictory statement before the enquiry authority. The petitioner submitted his reply and on 25.1.91, Dy. General Manager(P) expressed his displeasure and cautioned the petitioner on the aforesaid misconduct. 3. It was contended that on 11.11.91, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Manager along with letter dated 9.10.91 inter alia, stating that the Executive Director had reviewed the order dated 25.1.91 and article of charge and statement of allegations were issued against the petitioner. 4. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Executive Director has no power t...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »