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.
Sh. Hardyal Singh Vs. Smt. Kamlinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)254; 97(2002)DLT868; 2002(64)DRJ638
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This civil revision is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, assailing the order of an Additional District Judge dated 21.7.2000 by which he has allowed the plaintiff to produce some documents at the belated stage subject to payment of Rs. 250/- as cost. 2. The respondent has filed a civil suit for recovery of money and rendition of account against her father which is now posted before the Additional District Judge for recording evidence. An application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by her for permission to file certain documents, detailed of which have been given in para 2 of the application. In the application it was stated that the case was taken up for trial on 27.1.2000 when the Attorney-cum-Advocate for the plaintiff offered himself for re-examination on the question raised by the counsel for the defendant. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW1) she wanted to submit some documents for clarification of certain fact...
Mittal Brothers Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)471; 2002(2)ARBLR567(Delhi); 98(2002)DLT317
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Without going into the chequered history of the case into details the short controversy that falls for determination is whether the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself by not entertaining the counter claims of the respondent-DDA/objector and returning any finding in respect thereof and has rendered his award liable for setting aside.2. This was a contract which became subject matter of criticism by the Press as to the weak foundations laid by the contractor while constructing as many as 944 houses under the SFS scheme at Kishangarh Sector-A Pocket B & C. So much so the allegations were ordered to be investigated by the CBI and the record of the respondent/objector remained in the custody of the CBI for long. However for the purpose of the instant objections the following facts are relevant:-3. The disputes arose between the parties with regard to the work of construction of 944 houses under the SFS scheme at Kishangarh and the petitioner invoked the arbitration cl...
Mohd. Jamil Vs. Customs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(81)ECC693
ORDERR.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate had held the appellant guilty under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, Further by order dated 3.9.2001 the learned Magistrate has been pleased to sentence the appellant to six months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. under Section 132 of the Customs Act. He was also sentenced to undergo one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for one month under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. He submits that the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for over two months. Besides that he has already suffered the ordeal of trial for over twelve...
Kund Kund Polymers Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC152Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the benefit of MODVAT credit in respect of rejected goods received was denied.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P.V.C. compound and they cleared the goods on payment of duty. The various customers of the appellants returned the goods under their own invoices under Rule 57F(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules on payment of duty. The appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT credit on the strength of invoices issued by the customers. The show cause notice was issued for denying the credit on the ground that the rejected goods cannot be treated as inputs in the manufacture of the same final product.Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. Revenue filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue.4. The issue involved in this appeal is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Tin Mfg. Co. reported...
New Holland Tractors (India) Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Cus., New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC606
1. The appeal is at the instance of the assessee. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the valuation of goods imported by the assessee for original equipment manufacturing (assembly) and goods imported as spare parts.2. The appellant is a 100% subsidiary of M/s. New Holland Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. which is part of New Holland N.V. Group of Companies. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 70HP and 50HP tractors under the brand name "New Holland". For the above purpose the appellant imports component parts from New Holland Group of Companies. They also imported spare parts from unrelated companies. Since the two companies are related in terms of Explanation II to Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, pending examination of influence of relationship on the price of goods imported by them provisional assessment was made after issue of investigation circular dated 12-12-96 by depositing 5% extra duty deposit. In reply to the questionnaire the appellant declared that th...
Mathania Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC773
1. This appeal at the instance of the assessee has come up by way of reference before the Larger Bench in view of the contention raised by the Revenue that the decision of this Tribunal in Kanti Prasad Tribrewala v. CCE, Mumabi -1999 (107) E.L.T. 190 (T) which is relied on by the appellant requires reconsideration.2. Challenge in this appeal is against the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise dated 28-3-2001 confirming the demand of Central Excise duty to the extent of Rs. 71,09,050/-. A redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs were imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The matter came by way of remand before the Commissioner as per Order Nos. 8-10/2000-D, dated 15-11-99 for deciding the case afresh on merits as well as on the question of limitation by observing the principles of natural justice. It was alleged in the show cause notice issued to the assessee that they had been carrying on the process of bleaching of grey cotton fabrics ...
New Era Education Society Vs. Dy. Director of It (Exemption)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Delhi)87
The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-2-2001, pertaining to assessment year 1997-98. Though various grounds of appeal have been raised, the main ground related to the denial of exemption under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act.Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee-society is running-number of schools by the names of New Era Junior School, New Era Nursery School, New Era Public School, Mayapuri, Rajouri Garden and Naraina, New Era Public School, Pochanpur. The society is not registered under section 12A nor recognised under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following are the members of the society During the year, Mrs. Usha Chopra, Mrs. Vandana Chawla and Mrs.Aradhana Sondhi were the Principals, Vice-Principals and Incharge, Pochanpur School, respectively. During the year, they were paid the following salaries and supervisory charges : During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing off...
Shri Prem Sarup Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 97(2002)DLT737
R.C. Jain, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 29th January, 2002 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the petitioner-defendant seeking amendment of his written statement has been declined.2. The facts necessary to take note of for the disposal of the present civil revision are that the petitioner herein is facing a suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff Smt. Savitri Devi in respect of property bearing No. V-59, West Patel Nagar,Delhi. The petitioner-defendant is contesting the suit inter-alia on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court fee. After a protracted trial of about 13 years when the suit reached the stage of disposal an application under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement and to incorp...
Shri Dharam Chand Vashisht Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)95; 97(2002)DLT821
Vijender Jain, J.1. Rule.2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved on account of his professional experience for direct recruitment as laid in the R & P Regulations for the post of Asstt. Engineer/Asstt. Executive Engineer not taken into consideration by the Union Public Service Commission/UPSC by not calling him for interview, for the aforesaid post.3. On 19.10.95 this Court directed the UPSC that the petitioner be interviewed and result be kept in a sealed cover and would be subject to further order of this Court. Pursuant to that order petitioner appeared before the UPSC.4. Records of the Union Public Service Commission pertaining to the recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive has been brought under a sealed cover. Let sealed cover be opened by the Court Master.5. The sealed cover which was ordered to be opened in Court have been perused and the petitioner has been recommended by the UPSC as selected.6. The compass of controversy rela...
The Management Committee of Montfort Sr. Sec. School Vs. Mr. Vijay Kum ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)221; 2002(64)DRJ51
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises a short but interesting question. The question is whether Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) while hearing an appeal of a dismissed employee of a school preferred under Section 8(3) of Delhi School Education Act (in short the Act) was required to refer the appeal to an arbitrator on an application being filed before it by the petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 2. The factual matrix of the case, the disclosed by the pleadings of the parties, may be set out summarily as follows. The petitioner is the management committee of an unaided minority school, known as Montfort Senior Secondary School. The respondent Mr. Vijay Kumar was working as an Assistant Teacher in that School. Pursuant to the disciplinary action taken against him the petitioner Managing Committee of the school terminated his services by order dated 04.5.2000 against which the dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »