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.
Shri Sukhbir Singh, S/O Late Ajit Singh, R/O Village Burj, Teh. Taran ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)955; 2002CriLJ3529A; 97(2002)DLT925A
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. This case was heard along with CW 4786/1996 (Ajit Singh (dead) v.Union of India & Ors). The broad facts of the case have been mentioned in our decision rendered in that case and are not being repeated here. 2. Insofar as the competence of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) to hear the matter is concerned, the various grounds urged in Ajit Singh are not applicable to this case inasmuch as the Tribunal which heard and disposed of the case of the Petitioner consisted of a Chairman who was a retired Judge of the High Court and two members. They passed an order dated 7th May, 1997 dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner.3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, for the reasons mentioned in Ajit Singh, we issue a it of certiorari as prayed for. We set aside the order of the Competent Authority and the Tribunal and remand the case to the Competent Authority to have a fresh look into the matter in accordance wi...
Nanak Singh Sehgal and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)549; 97(2002)DLT742
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. Nanak Singh Sehgal and others have pressed into service provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 139/2000 registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi with respect to offence punishable under Section 147, 149, 341, 454, 380, 458 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts of the petitioners case can be delineated to be that most of them are office bearers of Gurdwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. The plot of land underneath Gurdwara measuring 241.67 sq. yds was owned by Permanand Chhabra who donated the same in favor of Gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsangh Sabha vide a Power of Attorney, agreement to execute the conveyance deed etc. Subsequently it is claimed that document in support were also executed in favor of Gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. Thereafter the plot was constructed upon and Gurudwara building was set up. Respondent No. 2, O P Arora claimed himself to be a d...
Uttam Singh Duggal and Sons Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi471; 2002(2)ARBLR259(Delhi); 97(2002)DLT882
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. At the vortex of the controversy that has arisen in these two Appeals is the following Arbitration clause:'The Arbitration shall give his Award (within a period of six months form the date of his entering on the Reference or within the extended time as the case may be) on all matters referred to him and shall indicate his findings, along with the sums awarded separately on each item of dispute.'2. The words in parenthesis are not found in every agreement, but that would not make any material difference to the present controversy, since they merely prescribe the period within which the award must be published. This Arbitration Clause has already received judicial scrutiny by several single Benches of this Court. In Charanjit Kochhar v. Union of India and Anr., 2001 7 AD (DELHI) 1164, V.S. Aggarwal, J. has concluded that the word 'finding' does not mandate the recording of reasons in the award. A contrary view has been taken by C.M. Nayar, J. in Walaiti Ram Gupta v. ...
Amit Raj and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)475; 2002(62)DRJ534
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,petitioners-accused seek quashment of FIR No. 126/2001under sections 323/325/34 IPC PS Maurice Nagar.2. Copy of FIR which was registered on the basis of statement of respondent No.2, a student of B.Com(Hons), is placed on pages 18 and 19 on the file. It is alleged in FIR that in the college elections to be held on 7th September 2001, Ram Chander and Rajat Singh Rathore were the candidates. In the meeting of new students called around 8.45 PM on 4th September 2001,Sachin Saurab, Rajat Singh Rathore, Amit Raj and Rohit Bhatia (petitioners-accused) used abusive language to Ram hander on which complainant, Manpreet, Naveen and Ram Chander raised objection. All of them came in the lawn of hostel while taling. There, Rajat Singh Rathore, Rohit Bhatia and Sachin Saurab said that they will not succumb in such a way and be beaten. Rajat Singh Rathore told Rohit Bhatia and Sachin Saurab to bring sticks. Rajat Singh Rathore hit the comp...
Dr. Bharat Ram Vs. S.K. Gupta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)511; 2002(3)Crimes349; 97(2002)DLT575; 2002(62)DRJ569
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of Crl.M.(M)Nos. 3593, 4011, 3591 and 4042/2000 wherein identical issue arise for decision.2. S.K. Gupta, respondent No. 1 is the complainant in Crl.M.(M) 3593/2000. His son Rajiv Gupta, respondent No. 1 is the complainant in Crl.M.(M) 4011/2000. Radha Rani, respondent No. 1 is the complainant in Crl.M.(M) 3591/2000 while Ritu Gupta, respondent No. 1 in Crl.M.(M) 4042/2000. Radha rani is the wife while Ritu Gupta is the daughter-in-law of said S.K. Gupta. Dr. Bharat Ram who has been imp leaded as accused No. 2 in four complaints, is the petitioner in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations made in four complaints barring cheque numbers are by and large identical.3. Submission advanced by Ms. Seema Gulati for petitioner was that the complaints are barred by time as they were filed much beyond the period of one month after service of demand notice(s) dated 8th December, 1997 on accused No. 1/company. In support ...
Bhopal Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC64Tri(Delhi)
1. In an earlier appeal filed by the same party, there was an interim order of this Tribunal directing the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 28,287/-.Purporting to act in pursuance of that order, the party reversed credit of the aforesaid amount in their Modvat account viz. RG 23A Part-II.When the matter came up before the Bench for report of compliance, the Bench did not accept the reversal of credit in the Modvat account as proper compliance with the aforesaid order under Section 35F. The Bench, therefore, dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F vide Final Order No. A/765/95-NB, dated 22-9-1995. On 23-1-1996, the appellants filed a letter with this Tribunal informing that they had debited an amount of Rs. 28,287/- in their PLA so as to comply with the earlier order for pre-deposit of the amount under Section 35F. By that time, they had also filed an application for restoration of the appeal. That application was d...
Mcnally Bharat Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC70Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner whereby the central excise duty was confirmed on cross country conveyor system and penalty was also imposed.3. The contention of the appellants is that cross country conveyor system has come into existence after piece by piece erection on the strong concrete foundations and structural columns fixed to the concrete foundation were attached to the machinery and equipment in such a way that they formed one integrated system. Their contention is that this cross country conveyor system is 1.3 kms. long and cannot be bought in the market as such. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Indus. Ltd. v. C.C.E.4. The contention of the Revenue is that cross country conveyor system was attached to the prepared platform with the help of foundation bolt.Thus, it was not in nature of permanent attachment and did not become immovable prope...
Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC771
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 24.8.2001 vide he had affirmed the Order-in-original of the Additional Commissioner confirming the duty and imposing penalty on the apppellants, as detailed therein.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of monochrome glass panels, funnels and shells falling under chapter heading 7008.20 of the CETA. They are using cerium oxide and pumice powder etc. They are also carrying out job work activity. They imported raw materials at concessional rate of duty under the provisions of Notification No.64/95-Cus. date 16.3.95 as amended by Notification No. 13/97-Cus. dated 1.3.97. But they instead of using that material in the manufacture of the final product, cleared the same as such. Having done so, they were served with show cause notice for payment of differential duty for which they had availed concession under the abovesaid notification.They contested the...
Orison Commerx (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT501TriDel
1. This application has arisen in an appeal filed by the applicants against the decision of the adjudicating and first appellate authorities confirming a demand of Customs duty of Rs. 1,50,747/- against them and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicants pray for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery thereof, pending the appeal.2. Examined the records. The applicants are manufacturers and exporters of quality leather garments. They export their entire production, for which they have an Export House status conferred by the DGFT. They used to import printed poly bags duty free under exemption Notification and consume the same for packing leather garments and then export such garments under a re-export bond executed in respect of the poly bags.As per the bond, the applicants were liable to export the poly bags within a period of six months from the date of importation thereof. The duty of over Rs. 1.5 lakhs confirmed against the ap...
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT645TriDel
1. The application is for restoration of an appeal was dismissed on 16-11-2000. The appeal was filed by the assessee against Order No.08/Ch.84/COMMR/99, dated 22-6-99 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise by which he had confirmed the demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 26,29,488/- and levied penalty of the same amount. The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking. The Committee on Dispute at its meeting held on 25-5-2000 refused to grant permission to pursue the appeal and then the appeal was, therefore, dismissed. The appellant, therefore, paid the duty amount of Rs. 26,29,488/- on 11-8-2000, Subsequently, at a meeting held on 23-8-2001 the Committee on Dispute granted clearance to pursue the appeal on levy of penalty. It is in this background the application was filed to restore the appeal only to the extent of challenge against levy of penalty.2. After hearing both sides, we feel that the application is only to be allowed and we allow the application.3. The arguments from b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »