Delhi Court April 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.
S.V. Electricals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC325Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals and two miscellaneous applications for hearing the case early are disposed of by this common order inasmuch as the issue for determination in these four appeals is the same.2. The issue is whether the Commissioner, Central Excise can exercise a power vested in him under Sub-section (3) of Section 35E to review orders and direct filing of appeals.3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why service tax should not be levied and collected from them. The show cause notices were dropped pursuant to the Apex Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharti's case reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365. The Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reviewed the order passed by the lower authorities directing them to file appeals under Sub-section (3) of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act. Pursuant to this direction the authorities bel...
Ram Wati and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC245; 2004ACJ220; 2002VIAD(Delhi)124; 97(2002)DLT982; 2002(62)DRJ636
R.C. Jain, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 16th November, 2001, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, thereby dismissing applications of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Limitation Act seeking restoration of the petitioner which was dismissed in default.2. The facts leading to the present petition are that on 18th March, 1994, the petitioner had filed a petitioner under the Motor Accident Claim Act for award of the compensation in regard to the accidental death of her only son of young age. The petition was dismissed in default on 18th March, 1997 as it was not being pursued diligently and steps for effecting service upon the respondents were not taken despite repeated opportunities allowed for the purpose. An application dated 3rd March, 2000, accompanied by another application under Order 5 of the Limitation Act was moved on behalf of the petitio...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Darshan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)1024; 97(2002)DLT573
R.C. Jain, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 7.8.1992, by which the first appeal filed by the respondent herein against the dismissal of his suit has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the board of the learned trial court for adjudication on merits.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the respondent herein had filed a suit against the petitioner-DDA for injunction for restraining them from issuing any demand/recovery of damages in respect of the suit premises bearing property No. 6127/2-3, Jhandewalan Road, Paharganj, New Delhi, on the averments that the said property was purchased by the father of the respondent some time in the year 1959 and after that he got his name mutated in the record of Municipal Corporation and let out the same to certain Satpal, proprietor/partner of property of Azad Hind Bag Factory. The petitioner-DDA started raising certain illeg...
Trans World Finance and Real Estate Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT767; 2002(63)DRJ655
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 12.1.99, thereby returning a finding that the plaint is not maintainable before the court and the matter in dispute be referred to the arbitration as per clause 9 of the lease deed.2. The relevant facts to be noted for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner herein had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises after terminating the tenancy of the respondent and for mesne profits for use and occupation. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant inter-alia on the ground that there exited an arbitration agreement between the parties in terms of Clause 9 of the lease deed dated 1st April, 1992 and, thereforee, the suit of the plaintiff before the civil court/judicial authority was not maintainable. Other averments and allegations made in the plaint were also appropriately replied. The petitioner-plaintiff did ...
S.M. Muddassir Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)81; 2002CriLJ3430; 98(2002)DLT129; 2002(63)DRJ27
K.S. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition by the accused is directed against the order dated 7th February 2002 of an Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted by him by the order dated 20th October 2000.2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. FIR No. 43/2000 under Sections 420/406/409/468/471/120B IPC PS New Friends Colony was registered on the complaint made by one K.R. Singh. The allegations made therein were that complaint had been cheated by Al Falah Group of Companies and its Chairman and directors to the tune of Rs. 95 lakhs which they collected from him under various schemes. After registration of case, about 350 more complaints were received from other investors against said Al Falah Group of Companies and its directors alleging cheating and misappropriation of their amounts of approximately Rs. 7.5 crores. First chargesheet was filed on 26th April 2000 in which only 3 directors were chargesheeted. Petitioner who was one of the directors of company...
Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)194; 2002(3)ARBLR100(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT654; 2002(64)DRJ846
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. These are objections preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. There is no gainsaying the fact that Section 34 of the Act has narrowed down the scope of interference with the award. Broadly the aggrieved party can challenge the award on the following grounds:- (i) If it deals with the dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to the Arbitrator. (ii) if it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of submissions to arbitration. (iii) If the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement under the law for the time being in force. (iv) If the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. 2. This Sections also explains as to under what circumstances the award can be held to be in conflict with the public policy of India. According to this Explanationn the award is in conflict with the public policy of India if the making of it was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in v...
Kamkhaya Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 2002VIAD(Delhi)599; 98(2002)DLT190; 2002(64)DRJ64; 2002(83)ECC881; 2002(143)ELT38(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. We propose to dispose of CWP Nos. 1729, 1740, 1744-45/2002 1744-45/2002 by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of only CW 1729/02 are recapitulated. We are informed that the facts of other petitions are more or less identical2. In this petition the petitioner has prayed that Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowering the Central Government to charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production in respect of notified goods, which was inserted in the Act w.e.f. 14.5.1997 by Section 81 of the Finance Act, 1997 be deleted as unconstitutional and vocative of Article 14, 19 & 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also prayed that Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Act, 1944 be also struck down. The petitioner has also prayed that the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 be also struck down by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Act. The ...
Lala Chaudhary Vs. Vijay Kelkar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR534(Delhi)
R.C. Chopra, J.C.M. No. 44 of 2002 in C. C. P. No. 272 of 2000 : 1. In this application, the petitioner had prayed for directions for allowing him inspection of certain documents and the records with the Income-taxAppellate Tribunal, Bombay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already inspected the records and as such, this application is not pressed.2. The application stands disposed of.C. C. P. No. 272 of 2000:3. This contempt petition has been initiated against the respondents on the basis of an order passed by a Division Bench of this court on September 9, 1999, in C. W. P. No. 1850 of 1999 wherein directions were issued to the respondents to see that the matter is finalised expeditiously and the entire reward money, as per the rules of the Department, is paid to him without any further delay.4. In para. 2 of his application, the petitioner has alleged that the said orders have been violated inasmuch as the reward money in respect of the raids has not been di...
Ram Avtar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT788; 2003(1)SLJ323(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a workman and is employed with respondent No. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.7.1993, and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 6.8.1993. Certain disputes were referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and a settlement was arrived at in the course of reconciliation on 2.9.1993 but the suspension of the petitioner continued.2. The petitioner received an office order dated 11.11.1993 for conducting an enquiry on the charge-sheet dated 6.8.1993. The enquiry was not concluded and the petitioner was under suspension when the petitioner filed CW 3489/99. In terms of the order dated 28.5.1999, it was noted that the case of the petitioner was under process and the suspension was liable to be withdrawn within two weeks. In view thereof the petition was dismissed as infructuous. Further direction was also passed 'however, it is made clear that if the suspension is not revoked the petitioner will be at liberty to r...
Ramwati and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC285
R.C. Jain, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 16th November, 2001, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, thereby dismissing applications of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151, C.P.C. and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking restoration of the petition which was dismissed in default.2. The facts leading to the present petition are that on 18th March, 1994, the petitioner had filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act for award of the compensation in regard to the accidental death of her only son of young age. The petition was dismissed in default on 18th March, 1997 as it was not being pursued diligently and steps for effecting service upon the respondents were not taken despite repeated opportunities allowed for the purpose. An application dated 3rd March, 2000, accompanied by another application under Order 5 of the Limitation Act was move...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »