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.
Telemecanique and Controls (India) Ltd. Vs. La Telemecanique Electriqu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT481
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the existence, validity and/or effect of the Arbitration Agreement Clause 18 contained in the Technical Services Agreement dated 28th November, 1984 and also of the Arbitration Clause contained in Condition No. 11 of the General Terms and Conditions of Acknowledgement of Orders of the respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that not only the said Clause 18 and Condition No. 11 are invalid, non-existent and ineffective but, the same also was superseded by a subsequent and fresh Arbitration Agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 as recorded in the Minutes of the Board Meeting of the petitioner held on 16th December, 1988 and, thereforee, the reference made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 is bad and invalid.2. The petitioner/Company is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in the busine...
Mrs. Mala Goel Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT6
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. As the subject matter involved in the present writ petitions is same and common, I propose to dispose of the said writ petitions by this common judgment and order.2. The present writ petitions are directed against the demand made by respondent No. 4-Society demanding payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioners as registration charges pursuant to Resolution dated 26.6.1994. It is stated in the writ petitions that the petitioners who purchased flats through general power of attorney and got the same registered in their names. They also obtained a letter of possession pursuant to which possession of flats at Ekta Garden were given to the petitioners. Subsequent thereto, a Resolution was passed by respondent No. 4 to the effect that all attorney holders would have to pay non-refundable charges of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed representations before the respondent No. 4-Society challenging validity of the aforesaid d...
JaIn Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC617
1. The applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 19,31,367 and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed by the applicants for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as applicants failed to deposit the amount as per the Stay Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The contention of the Appellant is that they were undertaking a job word of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and paying duty as per the decision of the principals laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. UOI 5. The contention of the Revenue is that as per the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the cost of raw material is to be added to the job work charges to determine the assessable value of the goods and the applicants are not disclosing the correct cost of raw material.Therefore, after calculating the cost of raw material at the factory gate of the Appellant the duty was c...
Vimal International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC390Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 20-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had extended time limit of another six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, for serving show cause on the appellants, under Section 124 of the Act.2. The appellants through two shipping bills both dated 7-9-2000 sought export of 250 CDs. each containing software of jewellery design and mahendi arts. The total value of the software CD was declared as US $ 1,90,000. However, on suspicion that there may be over-valuation of the CDs., the search of the office premises of the appellants was conducted on 13-9-2000 and the relevant documents were seized for the purpose of investigation. During investigation, the department suspected prima facie case of over valuation and did not allow export of 250 CDs. It further revealed that earlier also the appellants had exported 250 identical CDs. in July, 2000. The Investigating Officer accordingly s...
Nitesh Goel Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT685TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original dated 26-9-2001 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has fixed the redemption fine, for the confiscated goods at Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act and Rs. 23,200/- for redemption of seized Maruti Car and scooter.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On conducting search of the premises of Shri Lalit Goel (now deceased) and his brother Shri Sanjay Goel, the goods of various types as detailed in the impugned order itself of foreign origin were recovered and for which they could not produce any document showing the licit import, when the goods were seized. The Maruti car and the scooter standing in the premises were also seized. After serving show cause notice on both of them, the Commissioner vide order dated 11-8-1992, ordered for the confiscation of the goods as well as the vehicles. That order of the Commissioner was, however, challenged by Shri Lalit Goel and Shri San-jay Goe...
Friends Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC572
1. Both the appeals are filed against the common Order-in-appeal.Therefore are being taken up together. Applicants filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. From the record, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had not confirmed any demand. The Adjudicating Authority passed the following order: (i) I order that all the charges proposed in the show cause notice to be added are includable for determining the assessable value. (ii) I order that the amount of duty paid on the raw material i.e. amount of Modvat credit is not includable for determination of assessable value and this amount should be reduced. (iii) I confirm the demand of duty whatever become recoverable from the party after allowing the above one benefit at (iii) above (which should be worked out by the jurisdictional Range Office and communicated to the party under intimation to this Office) under Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944. (iv) I order to the party to pay the amount of interest on acc...
Friends Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT305TriDel
1. Both the appeals are filed against the common Order-in-Appeal.Therefore are being taken up together. Applicants filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.3. From the record, we find that the Adjudicating Authority had not confirmed any demand. The Adjudicating Authority passed the following orders : (i) I Order that all the charges proposed in the show cause notice to be added are ineluctable for determining the assessable value. (ii) I Order that the amount of duty paid on the raw material i.e. amount of Modvat credit is not includible for determination of assessable value and this amount should be reduced. (iii) I confirm the demand of duty whatever become recoverable from the party after allowing the above one benefit at (iii) above (which should be worked out by the jurisdictional Range Office and communicated to the party under intimation to this Office) under Section 11A of the CE Act, 1944. (iv) I Order to the party to pay the amount of interest on ...
Fairdeal Engg. Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT370TriDel
1. Through the present ROM application, the appellants have sought recall of the Final Order as well as the Stay Order i.e. Final Order No. A/1053 & 1054/99-NB(SM) and Stay Order No. S/480-481/1999-NB(S) both dated 29-9-1999. The grounds pleaded in the ROM application are as under - (i) the appellants initially sought stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 18-1-1999 and not of the interim stay order dated 17-12-1998 of the Commissioner (Appeals), but the Tribunal had dismissed their appeals also. (ii) the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed under Section 35-A, while the Tribunal in the Final Order had recorded that it was passed under Section 35-F. The appellants sought merely waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amount for the purpose of hearing of the appeals, but the Tribunal had dismissed their appeals without considering their waiver plea.2. All the above referred grounds had been reiterated by the lea...
Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)527; 2002(2)ARBLR56(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT191; 2002(62)DRJ439
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this application moved under Section 151 CPC, the petitioner-claimant has sought dismissal of the objections field by the respondent under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 solely on the ground that as per Clause 25 of the agreement parties had decided that in case there is any statutory modification or re-enactment of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the rules made there under, the same shall apply to arbitration proceedings under this clause. 2. It is contended by Mr. Raman Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner that since new Act came into force on 25.1.1996, the objections filed by the respondents under Sections 30 & 33 of the old Act are not maintainable and at the most can be decided on the premises of Section 34 of the New Act which provides recourse to court for setting aside the arbitral award. 3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel in proper perspective, the relevant facts need to be put in brief :- ...
Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1119; 97(2002)DLT545; I(2002)DMC674; 2002(62)DRJ654
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Nirmal Singh (for short "the Appellant/accused") has preferred the present appeal, directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, dated 23.10.1999. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was to under go further rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, the appellant was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Shobha, wife of the appellant is the deceased. They were married in...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »