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.
Kishore Chand Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)235; 2003CriLJ3321; 97(2002)DLT705; 2002(62)DRJ519
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This revision petition under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2000 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding petitioner's conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC, in the case FIR No. 424/84, P.S. Patel Nagar and the sentence under Section 304A IPC awarding RI for one year with fine of Rs. 4000/-, in default of payment of fine SI for three months. No separate sentence was passed u/s. 279 IPC.2. Notice. Mr. Pawan Sharma accepts notice. Learned counsel for parties submit that since the point involved in the petition is very short, petition be finally hearted at this stage itself. Arguments hearted.3. Prosecution allegations in brief are that on 3rd September, 1984, Petitioner while driving bus No. DEP 6362 rashly and negligently at a fast speed, hit a boy, who was trying to cross the road near Vivek Cinema. The boy died on account of injuries received in the accident. After investigation, challan was filed. By...
SachIn Enterprises Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(62)DRJ744; 2002(3)RAJ124
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ of certiorari, seeking quashing of the eligibility conditions of the lender for participating in the tender bid, as contained in tender No. LPG/PT/HLG/TKN/01/05. The challenge in the writ petition by the petitioner is particularly to the condition for possessing provident fund and ESI registration certificates (PF/ESI code numbers) for employees of the tenderers. Petitioner also question the forfeiture of Earnest Money deposit in the event of tenderer withdrawing the offer before its acceptance. Petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus to the respondent to entertain the price bid of the petitioner without PF/ESI Registration Certification (PF/ESI code numbers).3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sunita Harish, has drawn my attention to the basic tender conditions, the relevant portion of which is being reproduced for the sake of reference:-Basi...
Vimal Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Reported in: 98(2002)DLT24
Devinder Gupta, J. Heard.1. With the consent of the parties, appeal has been taken up today for hearing,2. Appellant's land situate in village Pul Pehlad, Mehrauli, New Delhi was acquired pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 23.1.1965. Declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 13,1.1969. The Collector, Land Acquisition made his Award No. 63/82-83 on 31.1.1983 and offered compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. Feeling dissatisfied, reference petition seeking determination of the amount of compensation was filed. Reference was forwarded to the Court. By the impugned award dated 1.9.1994, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha. Still, feeling dissatisfied, this appeal has been preferred claiming that the market value ought to have been assessed at Rs.50,000/- per bigha.3. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Hamdard Dawakh...
R.M.i. Foods Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC627Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture 'Malted Food' under Horlicks brand falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 1901.19. They received Horlicks in bulk packs from M/s. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Limited and in return packed it in 500 gms pouches. All these pouches of Horlicks are cleared on payment of duty. During the period from July, 1998 to September, 1998, they cleared 14,850 dozens of Horlicks packed in such pouches involving a duty of Rs. 16,23,564/- to their Madras depot. The packing of these goods were found substandard/damaged therefore, the same were returned to the factory. The goods were repacked and cleared on payment of duty again. The party claimed refund of the aforesaid amount of duty under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were, however, issued a show cause notice, dated 9-6-1999 by the Assistant Commissioner, Division-IV, Noida which averred that the process undertaken on the returned goods restricted only to the extent of exchanging packing mater...
Atul Chemical Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC222
1. The issue relates to allowing modvat credit on hand-written invoices.2. The case was called; no one is present on behalf of the appellants.Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDR is present on behalf of the Revenue. The issue involved is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Satyen Dyes 2001 (47) RLT 669 (LB), wherein it has been held that it would not be justifiable to deny modvat credit by reason of the SI. No. of the invoices having been hand-written subject to due verification, if it is found that the inputs were duty paid, received by the respondents and used in the manufacture of final product. Shri A.S. Bedi fairly concedes that since the issue is covered by the said decision of the Larger Bench, the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority in the light thereof. The appeal is accordingly allowed by remand....
Leather Avenues India Vs. State of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)20; 2002(62)DRJ329
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Civil Writ petition Nos. 524 of 2002 and 1450 of 2002 are identical in nature, thereforee, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by a common judgment.2. In these petitions the petitioners have prayed that the said Notification No.F. 101(48)2000-Fin(A/cs/)/ 120-128 dated 31.3.2001 be quashed.3. It is also prayed that the said notification relating to taxability of Duty Entitlement pass Book Scheme be declared ultra virus of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.4. This Court issued show cause notice and during the pendency of the petitions C.M.No. 2500/2002 was filed with a prayer to stay the implementation of Annexure-A writ of demand issued in pursuance of the said Notification Advance copy of this application was given to the learned counsel for the respondents. During the cause of hearing of this application it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this very notification was challenged before the Division ...
Mrs. S. Jain, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT877; 2002(81)ECC682; 2002(144)ELT262(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions have challenged the demand show cause notices wherein it is stated that the petitioners were erroneously levied certain duties/charges and the amount was recoverable fro the petitioners under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Although the demand show cause notices are of different dates, issue involved in these show cause notices is same an show cause notices are similarly worded. In these show cause notices the petitioners are asked as to why they should not be required to pay the amount mentioned therein. All these petitioners are having cotton fabrication plants/units/ By Notification dated 15th July, 1977 cotton fabrics falling under Tariff item No. 19 were exempted fro so such of the duty as was excess if the duty specified in the notification. It is the case of the petitioners that some dispute about the interpretation of this notification arose and by orders dated 23rd May, 1981 October, 1981, the Assistant...
Kedia Investment Corporation and anr., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)240; 97(2002)DLT1003; 2002(82)ECC35; 2002(145)ELT506(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Since similar question of law is involved in these cases and thereforee taken up for discussion together and disposed of by this common order.2. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may take up the facts of CWP No. 3917/82.3. The question for consideration in this petition relates to the challenge of notification No. 232 CUS dated 21st October, 1982 which purports to amend the fixed time notification No. 86 CUS dated 23rd April, 1980 as amended by notification No. 164 CUS dated 5th June, 1982 and the action of the respondents in purporting to charge duty of customs in excess of 55 per cent ad valorem on the caprolactum imported by the petitioners.4. It is the case of the petitioners that notification dated 5th June, 1982 was valid up to 31st May, 1983 and during the currency of this notification, it was not permissible for the respondents to issue another notification dated 21st October, 1982 thereby enhancing the limit from 55 per cent to 75 per cent. Thus valid...
National Steel Agency and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC32; 2002(143)ELT63(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioners were the importer of unwrought zinc and duty of customs in respect of unwrought scrap and zinc waste is levied under the heading No. 79 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Government issued notification No. 23/82 (CUS) dated 28th February, 1982 which exempted the goods specified therein from so much of that portion of the duty of customs livable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule as is in excess of the rates specified in the Corresponding entry in column (III) of the said table which exempts the goods specified therein from so much of duty of customs livable therein as is in excess of 45 per cent ad-valorem. It is the case of the petitioners that as per this notification, the custom authorities can levy and collect the duty of customs only to the extent of rates specified thereon and not in excess of the rates specified therein. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents wanted to charge more ...
Naraindas Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC37; 2002(143)ELT52(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 the petitioner was required to pay the customs duty on the importation of PBSY cotton seed oil at the rate of 60 per cent ad valorem and the additional duty. Under Section 25 of the Customs Tariff Act, the Central Government has been given power to grant exemption from payment of duty if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do. In exercise of this power, the Central Government issued two notifications dated 1st April, 1980 and 24th October, 1980 granting total exemption from payment of custom duty and additional duty on edible oils imported into India by the National Dairy Development Board (for short 'NDDB)'. The petitioner has sought to challenge the aforesaid orders on the ground that granting of exemption to NDDB and not to the petitioner would be discriminatory and also vocative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the commodity importer by the petitioner would be at a higher p...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »