Delhi Court March 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Ms. Sarla Kaushik and ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh Rathor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT822; 2002(64)DRJ545
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of Section 3(3)(b)(i) of Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') falls for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20.11.2001 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 57 of 2001 whereby and whereunder a notification dated 15.12.2000 issued by the Administrator, Delhi in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act was set aside.2. Elections for Councillors in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short, 'the Corporation') were held in February, 1997. The Administrator in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the said Act vide notification dated 29.09.1997, nominated ten persons to be represented in the Corporation including the petitioners. The said notification had neither been withdrawn nor cancelled or amended.3. By reason of the impugned notification dated 15.12.2000, the Administrator...
Charanjeet Dudeja Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT30
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner who claims himself to be a 'public spirited person' has brought to this Court, by way of this writ petition filed in public interest, the problem of illegal squatting as well as encroachment on the foot-path and roads of Chandni Chowk area resulting into traffic jams as well. The grievance made in me writ petition, in the nutshell, is that non-squatting zones and non-parking areas indicated in the vicinity of Chandni Chowk have been used for huge parking and also used by the vendors for vegetables and fruits sellers. It is stated in the petition that in the following areas, in particular, huge parking and squatting is taking place:(i) Link Road of New Lajpat Rai Market from Red Fort Main Road to Hanuman Mandir Esplanade Road, Chandni Chowk along with Jain Sports Club. (ii) Link Road of South side of New Lajpat Rai Market from Red Fort Road Main to Esplanade Road Cycle Market End along with Parade Ground of Red Fort. (iii) From Cycle Market Police Beat (P...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banwari Lal and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR518(Delhi)
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The question, which has been referred for the opinion of this court in these references at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in annulling the reassessment for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1969-70 framed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for bringing to tax as income of the assessed-company under the head 'Income from house property', in terms of the enhanced compensation in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1974-75 ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1961-62 to 1969-70. The assessed is a private limited company. Its main source of income was le...
Cit Vs. Banwarilal and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)124
S.B. Sinha, C.J.The question, which has been referred for opinion of this court in these references at the instance of the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'), is as under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in annulling the reassessments for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1969-70 framed by the Income Tax Officer under section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for bringing to tax as income of the assessed-company under the head 'income from house property', in terms of the enhanced compensation in pursuance of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1974-75 ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1961-62 to 1969-70. The assessed is a private limited company. Its main source of i...
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2003(159)ELT29(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the Order No. 327 of 1980, dated 22nd March, 1980 passed by the Special Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi in Central Excise Revision Application filed by the petitioner. Before pointing as to what this order decides, let us recapitulate the facts of the matter.2. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture of automotive tyres and tubes which factories are situated at Madras, Goa and Kottayam. The petitioner's factory at Goa manufactures tyres only and the factory at Kottayam manufactures only tubes. The factory at Madras manufactures both tyres and tubes.3. It is stated in the petition that duty of excise is livable on tyres and tubes under Tariff Item No. 16 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). Under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item No. 16 excise duty is livable on tyres at the rate of 60% ad valorem. The Central Government, under Notificati...
Reflex International (P) Ltd., Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(82)ECC40
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. In these aforesaid petitions, common questions of law arise and we deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioners have challenged the legality and constitutionality of Notification No. 205 dated 16.10.1980 issued by the respondents purporting to nullify or supersede the earlier notification dated 15.3.1979 by virtue of which Polyvinyl Chloride resin (PMC) was exempted from the whole of the customs duty livable on imports into India and the said notification was in force till 31.8.1979. The said exemption was extended from 31.8.1979 to 31.8.1980 and thereafter again extended up to 31.3.1981 by another Notification No. 37 of 25.3.1980.3. In the writ petitions it is prayed that imposition of the said duty is without the authority of law and such levy is vocative of the petitioners' rights as conferred under Articles 19(1)(g), 301 and 301A of the Constitution. It is mentioned in these petitions that imposition of the Customs...
Mittal International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT667TriDel
1. Challenge in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the Order-in-Appeal No. HKS/949 SVB/2001, dated 21-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Issue relates to the valuation of refrigeration equipment imported by the appellant from M/s. Frimont, S.P.A., Italy. The adjudicating authority loaded the declared assessable value of the goods by 15% which was affirmed by the appellate authority.2. The reason given for rejecting the transaction value and for loading 15% rate was that the appellant is an indenting agent of the foreign company M/s. Frimont, the products are offered at the prices and terms established by the foreign company, the appellant company has an indirect operational control over the Indian party and therefore the two are related in terms of Rule 2(2)(v) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. Referring to the terms of the agreement between the parties under which the appellant is receiving commi...
Aditya Promotors (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC89Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of vaccum flasks, thermowares and plastic products. On 20.10.1999, a tempo was intercepted by the revenue authorities near the gate of appellants' unit and on demand, the driver only produced kachha challans and could not produce any duty-paying documents in respect of goods found in the tempo. The goods found in tempo valued at Rs. 23,958.00, were taken into possession and thereafter the appellants' firm was visited by the excise officers and during verification of the records, the goods, valued at Rs. 2,34,177.00 were found in the factory without entering into record. The goods valued at Rs. 6,06, 219.00 were seized from outside the factory and the appellants could not produce proof in respect of duty payment of these goods. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and allowed the release of the...
Sirocco Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT704TriDel
1. These applications seek waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalties imposed in adjudication Order 03/RM/2001, dated 4-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II, Commissionerate, The duty demand is on account of the finding that the original assessments of goods manufactured by the appellant M/s.Sirocco Pressing Pvt. Ltd. were not correctly made inasmuch as they had availed themselves of Small Scale Exemptions. The demand is for the period February, 1995 to September, 1999 and the Small Scale Exemption has been denied on the ground that the appellant was using the brand name of another person on their products and that the use of the brand name of the another person made a Unit ineligible for Small Scale Exemption.2. Waiver of pre-deposit is being canvassed on the ground of merits of the case as well as time bar of demand. The appellants submit that in respect of the goods manufactured by them, namely, Clutch Plates and Pressure Plates no other person o...
Commissioner of Customs, New Vs. Suri Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22-11-2000 who disallowed the classification of the product in question under product group 89/75 for DEPB credit as silk made-ups.2. The respondents had filed shipping bill dated 21-9-2000 for silk made-ups p/I silk embroidered boxes of various sizes declaring total FOB value Rs. 22,70,389.50. They classified their product under product group 89/75 for DEPB credit, as silk made-ups. But the Deputy Commissioner did not accept their classification and observed that the export product was not covered under the DEPB of Drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reversed that order of the Deputy Commissioner through the impugned order.4. The facts are not much in dispute. The export product in respect of which the shipping bill dated 21-9-2000 was presented, was declared as silk-embroidere...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »