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.
Manglam Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT331TriDel
1. Applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake on record in Final Order No. A/1202/01-NB(S), dated 24-8-2001.3. While passing the impugned order dated 24-8-2001 the Tribunal relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v C.C.E. reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 552, whereas the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was set aside by the hon'ble Supreme Court on 22-8-2001 reported in 2001 (133 ) E.L.T. 3.4. In view of the fact that the decision, relied upon by the Tribunal, was already set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application is allowed and the Final Order No. A/1202/01-NB(S), dated 24-8-2001 is recalled. Registry is directed to list the appeal on 10-6-2002 for arguments....
Chenab Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC330Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals, filed by M/s. Chenab Textile Mills, the issue relates to the determination of the assessable value of the waste of man made fibre.2.1. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants are not pressing the appeals in respect of inclusion of Dharmada and handling and forwarding charges in the assessable value of the waste; that they are only challenging the inclusion of packaging charges in the assessable value; that four show cause notices as under were issued to them for demanding duty: 2.2. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants charge bardana charges only from those buyers with whom they have the contract to charge bardana charges and in respect of others, the bardana was brought by the buyers; that bardana charges were collected by them only in cases when bardana was supplied by them; that it has been held by the Appellate Tribunal that where packing is optional, its cost is not to be included in the assessable value. He relied...
Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC549
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. is whether the demand of Central Excise duty is barred by limitation, and whether the demand of duty has been calculated in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.R.F. case 2. Shri K. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture branded chewing tobacco; that the basic question as to interpretation of place of removal and admissibility of deduction of freight and insurance charges on sale from duty paid depot have been decided against them by the Larger Bench in their own case as ; that they have gone in appeal in the Supreme Court on the aspect of interpretation of place of removal; that the duty demanded under the impugned Order is for the period from 1.10.96 to 1.8.99 and the show cause notice was issued on 3.1.2001; that the Appellants when they made the initial declaration of assessable value derived from the All India Equalised cum-duty selling pr...
Mr. S.P. Minocha Vs. Lila Ram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi223; 97(2002)DLT708; 2002(63)DRJ610
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, by this review application, seeks review/recall of order dated 15.9.1997, by which the civil revision petition No. 1041/96 and CM.4493/96 were disposed of. Pleadings in the review application were completed and case was adjourned from time to time to enable the parties to explore the feasibility of settlement, which did not fructify. Parties filed written synopsis and were also heard on 25.1.2002 and order was reserved.2. Before considering the grounds on which the review of the order dated 15.9.1997, is sought, the factual matrix, as recorded in the impugned order, disposing of the civil revision, may be briefly noted:-3. Petitioner an advocate, is the landlord, who had filed the present civil revision petition against an order dated 8.10.1996, by which the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for wrongful dis-possession had been dismissed by the Civil Judge. The petitioner landlord had earlier filed an eviction petit...
K.G. Kochar (Retd. Gm) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)343; 2002(5)SLR474
Vijender Jain, J.1. This petitioner was filed for appropriate direction to the respondents for fixation of the revised scale of pay as well as for payment of gratuity, leave encashment arrears of salary computed on the last pay drawn in the revised scale of pay with interest. It seems that during the pendency of the writ petition, arrears of the revised pay scale were paid in July/August, 2001. Petitioner, who is appearing in person has contended that he isentitled to interest as the arrears of revised pay scale was received by him after one year. In support of his contention, he has cited Vijay Malhotra v. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2000)IILLJ253SC as well as State of Gujarat v. Umedbai M. Patel : (2001)IILLJ1140SC and Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 (4) SCT 710 . On the basis of the aforesaid authorities, petitioner has prayed that he may be paid interest forthe delayed payment on arrears of pay.2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that as far as the pa...
Shri Dharam Chand Vs. Shri R.K. Jha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)308; 97(2002)DLT639
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, assailing the order of an Additional District Judge dated 4.12.2000 whereby he had dismissed his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and had declined to allow an amendment in the plaint.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the defendant Mr. R.K. Jha, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vivek Vihar, Delhi as damages for causing mental injuries and defamation. It is alleged that he is owner of a property in village Karkardooma. He filed a civil suit against the DDA in which interlocutory injunction was granted. During the pendency of the civil suit the defendant, the then ACP, Vivek Vihar tried to demolish the suit property in contravention of the injunction order. He also caused harassment to the plaintiffcausing him mental injury and defamation for which he was liable to pay the damages. It was submitt...
Vijay Prakash Gupta Vs. Mohinder Kumar Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)606; 97(2002)DLT861
R.C. Jain, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, sitting as First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the appellant praying mandatory and perpetual injunction as well as recovery of Rs. 1,000/- on the allegations that the appellant who is a tenant in respect of two rooms on the first floor and a tin shed on the second floor had removed the tin shed and covered the entire roof including the area of the tin shed by raising construction and shifted the tin shed on the top without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought removal of the said illegal structure and injunction in regard to further construction. The suit was defended by the appellant on the ground that the tenanted portion comprise of the accommodation on the first floor, second floor and also the ...
Shri V.K. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IIIAD(Delhi)1054; 97(2002)DLT337; 2002(65)DRJ497; [2003(96)FLR181]; 2003(1)SLJ195(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner is employed with Delhi High Court and is covered by the Central Government Health Scheme known as CGHS. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks a direction to the respondents, namely, Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi and the Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, to reimburse the full amount paid to the Escorts Heat Institute and Research Centre Ltd. (for short EHIRC), for the open heart surgery operation, undergone by him. Petitioner also prays for costs to be awarded.2. Petitioner was suffering from cardiac disease, which was diagnosed as a case of residual VSD closure and was referred to EHIRC for treatment. The Registrar of Delhi High Court duly permitted the petitioner to undergo treatment and open heart surgery at EHIRC. A communication dated 24.5.2000, was addressed to the Medical Supdt. EHIRC, permitting the petitioner to have treatment at the Centre as per his entitlement and f...
H.B. Mishra Vs. Ram Parkash (Deceased) Thr Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)755; 97(2002)DLT879; 2002(62)DRJ525
R.C. Jain, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 17.9.2001. By means of this composite order, the learned trial court has disposed of four applications; three filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking different reliefs and one application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction on the petitioner-defendant for payment/deposit of rent/damages from 1.6.97 onwards @ Rs. 6500/- per month. The challenge in the present revision petition is confined only to the order passed on the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 151 CPC.2. The petitioner-defendant is facing a suit for his eviction from the suit premises after termination of his tenancy. The suit is being contested by him inter alias on the ground that a memorandum of Understanding has been executed between the parties and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 6 lacs wi...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)608; 97(2002)DLT524; 2002(62)DRJ692
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC the petitioner seeks a review of the order, dated 3 December 1999, whereby the LPG distributorship allotted to him under the discretionary quota of the Minister for Petroleum was cancelled on the ground that the discretion exercised in his favor was not proper as no verification was carried out before the order of allotment was made.2. The appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to briefly refer to the background facts. A public interest petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Centre for Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for laying down guidelines to regulate exercise of discretion in the matter of allotments of petroleum and LPG dealerships under the discretionary quota. The Apex Court laid down the norms/guidelines for making such allotments. The said decision is since reported as Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Ors. . Yet ano...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »