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.
Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Khan and ors. Vs. J.K. Helene Curtis Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)208; AIR2002Delhi425; 2002(62)DRJ442
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking decree for possession on the admissions made by defendant No. 1 in the written statement.2. It is pointed out at the very outset that two portions of the property were leased out vide identical lease deeds both dated 1.6.1979 to two sister concerns namely Straw Products Ltd. and defendant No. 1 of the instants suit. Both the suits were consolidated for trial. Similar application was also made in Civil Suit bearing No. 3381/1991 and was decided on 4.8.2000 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Goel whereby suit was decreed against Straw Products Ltd. However, the instant application could not be decided as Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Goel retired by that time. Besides merits, it is on the premise of decision of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Goel moved in S.No. 3381/1991 that decree for possession is being sought in this suit also.3. Plaintiffs have brought out following admissions emanating from written submissions:-i) There ...
Sh. S.C. Sharma and ors., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ361
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The facts of all the three petitions are substantially the same. They involve common question of law. They were heard together and it is proposed to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment. CWP No. 6789/2000 was treated as the leading case and the counsel for the parties made their submissions with reference to the record of this case. It would be thereforee appropriate to narrate the facts of this petition for understanding the controversy and appreciate the respective points of view of the parties. 2. The petitioners in this petition feel aggrieved by judgment dated 9th November, 2000 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 1407/2000. These petitioners and private respondent namely, respondent No. 3 are all working as Scenographer Gr. C on long term basis. The respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioners. Next promotion is to the post of Stenographer Gr. 'B'&'A'. It may be mentioned that the service of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 comprises o...
Tek Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ338
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th January, 2002 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge of the appellant to the acquisition proceedings. It is not disputed that the land was notified under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as far back as 18th April, 1995. A declaration under Section 6 was issued on 26th April, 1996 and Award was made and published on 24th April, 1998. The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings only in the year 2000. The only Explanationn of the appellant for challenging the acquisition proceedings after an inordinate delay of five years is that the appellant had preferred a representation to the third respondent against the acquisition of land which was pursued by him bonafide. Assuming that this to be so, it appears that the appellant remained on his own oars and did not challenge the acquisition proceedings for a long t...
G.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT387TriDel
1. The appellant is a manufacturer of shaving razors. The present appeal is in regard to Gillette brand disposable shaving razors manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Indian Shaving Products Ltd. (ISPL) during the period March, 1999 to November, 1999. As the issue raised in all these appeals is the same, they were heard together and are disposed of under this common order.2. Facts material to the present dispute are that the appellant undertook the manufacture of Gillette Presto International (GPI) razors as a job work from ISPL. All the parts and materials required for the manufacture of GPI razors were received by the appellant from M/s.ISPL. The appellant also took Modvat credit of the duties paid on these parts and materials and used that credit for payment of duty on the final product. The process of manufacture of GPI razors is to assemble a handle and twin blade into a razor and to pack the assembled razor.2.1. As a sales promotion measure, M/s. ISPL decided to supply one GP...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Polymer Papers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC180Tri(Delhi)
1. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held, "I hold that the respondents herein have rightly availed the benefit of exemption provided in the Notification No. 18/95 on 16-3-1995 and 8/96-CE, dated 23-7-96 prior to 1-3-97 and w.e.f. 1-3-97, the same would fall under Chapter sub-heading 4811.39. I thus hold that the order of the Adjudicating Authority is not legal and proper. Hence the same is set aside." 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Impregnated Filter Paper, Filter Filament, PVC Compound Glue and Adhesive. The respondent is also availing Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. During the course of checking of RT-12 returns for the month of October, 1996 it was observed that the respondents herein availed exemption under Notfn. Nos. 18/95 and 8/96. The Department alleged that impregnated filter paper is not classifiable under sub-heading 4811.30 w...
B.L. Kalucha Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT183TriDel
1. These appeals and stay petitions arise from Order-in-Appeal No. HKS (630 & 631) CARGO/2001, dated 3-8-2001. Under the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the duty demands and penalties imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Order-in-Original No. Cargo (Prev.) FMJ/1/2001, dated 1/-4-2001.2. The basic dispute in this case is the valuation of cosmetic item imported by M/s. Overseas Traders, New Delhi under Bill of Entry No.890037, dated 11-4-2000 and Bill of Entry No. 881909, dated 21-3-2000.The impugned orders have held that value of the cosmetic item under import had been misdeclared rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the declared values were enhanced for the purpose of assessment of the goods. Goods were also confiscated and penalties, redemption fine etc. imposed. The enhancement of value was based on purported trade enquiries conducted from Co-operative Stores and Madan Lal Motilal.3. The app...
Greysham and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT705TriDel
2. The issue involved in this Appeal is in respect of classification of water dispenser performing two functions of dispensing water and dispensing hot or cold water. The Revenue wants to classify the same under Heading 8517.00 of the Central Excise Tariff whereas the claim of the applicants is under Heading 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff.We find the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Hello Mineral Water P. Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T.716 (T)]. In this case, the Tribunal held that water dispenser performing two functions of dispensing water and dispensing hot or cold water at users option are classifiable under Heading 8479.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed....
Andaz Securities Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ghanshyamdas Kedia and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)585; 2002(2)ARBLR60(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT200
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Admittedly disputes arising out of agreement to sell executed between the parties are pending adjudication before the Arbitrator. The petitioners have through this application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought interim protection by way of restraining the respondents from selling, transferring, disposing of and/or parting with possession and/or creating any encumbrance and/or charge in any manner in respect of the suit land. 2. The facts germane for deciding the controversy in short are as under:- 3. The respondents and/or their predecessors-in-title were employee of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Limited, Delhi and had purchased from the said company, 19 plots of land measuring 3 acres. At that point of time, the Master Plan showed it as an institutional area and no residential construction was permitted as per the Delhi Development Act and the Master Plan. While acquisition proceedings were pending, agreement of sell in q...
Anil Gupta and anr. Vs. Kunal Dasgupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)390; AIR2002Delhi379; 97(2002)DLT257
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Plaintiff no. 1 is a media consultant. Plaintiff no. 2 is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, defendant no. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer of defendant no. 2-Soni Entertainment Television, defendant no.3 is a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore, which is the principal holding company of defendant no. 2, defendant no.4-UTV Ltd. is a television production house having its regd. office at Mumbai. 2. It has been claimed that plaintiff has got very good reputation in his field of activities and has introduced commercial sponsored programme of Doordarshan and has been associated with Serialls such as 'Buniyad', 'Rajni' etc. and the first telefilm 'Janam'. He has been the founder member and convener of the Indian Broadcasters Association. The plaintiff set up a company in the year 1995 called 'A to Z Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.', which was later renamed as 'Taal India Communications Pvt. Ltd.'- plaintiff no. 2. 3. It is the case of the plaintif...
Jk Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT554; 2002(62)DRJ152
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This winding up petition under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed against the respondent company. The petitioner had booked 4 flats in a proposed group housing scheme by the respondent company on 18.8.89, The petitioner continued to make payments for the said four flats as per the demands by the respondent and was issued four allotment letters for flats No. G-302, H-302, H-401 and H-301. By August, 1996 the petitioner had made a payment of Rs. 20,69,350/- for the said flats and acknowledged by receipts of the respondent. The respondent claimed an enhanced amount of Rs. 7,16,384/- from the petitioner for the said four fiats in December, 1996 by 17th July, 1997 failing which the booking was to stand cancelled. The said enhancement not having been found acceptable by the petitioner the petitioner sought refund of Rs. 15,56,168/- i.e. the amount deposited minus 20% as per Clause 4(a) which reads as under:'4(a) Ins...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »