Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vs. Bilt Rite Packaging (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)(144)ELT479TriDel
1. This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the decision of the adjudicating and first appellate authorities allowing Modvat credit on inputs to the respondents to the extent of Rs. 2,94,450/-. Out of this total credit taken by the assessee during the period November, 1993 to February, 1994, a credit of Rs. 1,51,365.02 was taken on inputs received under cover of invoices, in piecemeal, from the depot of the input-manufacturer viz. Indian Petro Chemical Corporation Ltd. (for short, IPCL). The total quantity of the inputs so received was covered by a gate pass issued by the manufacturer, which was retained with appropriate endorsements in the depot and finally delivered to the assessee along with the last lot of inputs. The credit taken on such inputs and allowed by the authorities below has been questioned by the appellant on the ground that a gate pass with more than two endorsements was not a valid duty-paying document for the purpose of availment of Mod-vat credit during the materi...
S.K. Verma Vs. Chairman, International Airport Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002VIIAD(Delhi)237; 98(2002)DLT199; 2002(63)DRJ477
Vijender Jain, J.1. This petition can be disposed of at this stage. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10.8.2000 when the Court directed respondent de hors the argument of the petitioner that the result of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) could not have been put in the sealed cover, to open the sealed cover and intimate the result of the DPC as far as the petitioner was concerned. The petitioner had obtained 54.8 marks out of 85 marks and he was found entitled for promotion. However, promotion has not been given to the petitioner from the date the petitioner was eligible for promotion on the basis of the DPC held on 19.4.1993.2. It is contended by Mr. Sabharwal, leaned counsel for the respondent that as an inquiry was to be conducted with regard to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been granted promotion. The charge-sheet in this case was issued to the petitioner on 25.11.1994 whereas DPC met on 19.4.1993.3. On the other hand, Mr. Luthra, learned counsel...
Sukhdev Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)944; 2002CriLJ3964; 97(2002)DLT969
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. The appellant Sukhdev Singh was attached with Mangat Ram as a Personal Security Officer. Mangat Ram was a Municipal Councillor and was also working as Chairman, Works Committee. The appellant has been held guilty by the learned trial court vide the judgment and order of 17th August, 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 307 of the said Code. On 18th August, 1998 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.2. The facts of the prosecution case were that Devender Singh had parked his three wheeler scooter bearing no. DIB 1805 opposite th...
Amit Kapoor Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)939; 98(2002)DLT232; 2002(63)DRJ479
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Appellant/petitioner seeks suspension of sentence invoking Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo further imprisonment for six months. They were to sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 436 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine they were to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The facts of t...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Maruti Udyog Employees Union and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)425; 98(2002)DLT673; [2002(95)FLR408]
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff i.e. a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing automobile vehicles. The plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, members, employees and anybody on their behalf from holding demonstration and raising slogans etc. within the radius of 500 metres from the walls of the offices of the company and as well as the residences of the Managing Director and other Directors and further restrain them from interfering in the ingress and egress of the officers, employees, customers or anybody connected with the business of the company in their corporate office and other office of the plaintiff company.2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-Plaintiff's company's corporate office is located at 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi with Regional Office at Hansalaya Building Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and workshop at Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. The defendant No. 1 ...
Trilochan Singh Johar and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002IVAD(Delhi)951; 2002CriLJ3268; 98(2002)DLT228; 2002(62)DRJ787
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR No.101/2000 under Sections 363/366/376, IPC, P.S. Vasant Vihar (State v. Vinod James) and the proceedings thereon, pending in the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. 2. The accused has not been imp leaded as the party and the prayer clause of the petition reads as under :- 1. for protecting the matrimonial prospects and educational career of petitioner No.2 the FIR No.101/2000 registered at Vasant Vihar, P.S. under Sections 363/366/376, IPC be kindly withdrawn and cancelled; 2. the petitioners be exempted from appearing as PWs. in the learned trial court on 28.2.2002, and on subsequent dates, or in the alternative prosecution evidence be stayed till the final disposal of the present petition.' 3. Notice. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record. Learned c...
M.L. Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)1034; 2002(3)ARBLR376(Delhi); 99(2002)DLT512; 2002(63)DRJ57
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this appeal M/s. M.L. Mahajan (hereinafter referred as the Contractor) has assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated July 20, 1990 whereby the Award of a sum of Rs. 2,51,600/- in respect of Claim No. 20 (which was for a total sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-) had been set aside. This Claim was lodged on account of the alleged rise in the market price beyond the stipulated date of completion. The Appellant/Contractor has prayed that the Award dated 15.9.87, in respect of Claim No. 20, be made rule of the Court and that interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of the payment be also granted along with costs. The facts in brief are that the Contractor was awarded the work of construction of 40 MIG/LIG and 20 Janta Houses at Dilshad Garden, Group A, Pocket II, Delhi, vide letter dated 25.3.1977. Thereafter an Agreement bearing No. 6/HD/XIX/76-77 dated 31.3.1977 was executed between the parties. The work was to commenc...
Serene Industries Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Fina ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT602
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for setting aside the impugned orders dated 20-12-1999, 6-6-2000 and 13-6-2000 passed by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively. Serene Industries Ltd. is the petitioner No. 1 ('the company'); Mr. Rajesh Sarvaiya is the petitioner No. 2; the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction is respondent No. 1 ('the AAIFR'); Board of Industrial & Financial Reconstruction ('the BIFR'); Development Commissioner, Industries is respondent No. 3; Chairman & MD, State Bank of India, is respondent No. 4 ('the SBI'); Chairman & MD, Dena Bank is respondent No. 5 ('the Dena Bank'); Chairman & MD, Oriental Bank is respondent No. 6 ('the Oriental Bank'); Chairman & MD, Bank of India is respondent No. 7; Chairman & MD, IDBI is respondent No, 8; Chairman & MD, IIBI is respondent No. 9; Chairman & MD, ICICI is respondent No. 10; Chairman & MD, IFCI is respondent No. 11; Chairman...
Great Arts (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Del)121
S. Mukherjee, J.By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of notice dated 27-3-1976, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), proposing to reassess the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1967-68, on the ground that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.2. The petitioner has also challenged a communication dated 29-10-1979, issued by Income Tax Officer, Company Circle-XIV, vide which the said officer had conveyed that the reasons leading to the initiation of reassessment proceedings, were not required to be communicated by relying on the Supreme Court decision reported as S. Narayanappa & Ors. v. CIT : [1967]63ITR219(SC) .3. After show-cause notice was issued in the writ petition, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit to which has been annexed, as Annexure A, the statement of reasons recorded by the Income Tax Officer, Company Circle-XIV on th...
Garha Containers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC838
The appellants are manufacturers of boxes, cartons, containers of paper and paper board etc. During the period October, 1999 to April, 2000, they took Modvat credit of the duty of Rs. 1,05,452/- paid on MSCR strips (inputs), under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and utilized the same for payment of duty on round boxes (final product), which they classified under CSH 4819.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and on which they paid duty @ 16%. The department, by show cause notice, proposed to disallow the credit, alleging that the final product in respect of which the credit was availed and utilized was classifiable under CSH 4410.90 and chargeable to nil rate of duty and, therefore, the availment of Modvat credit was barred by Rule 57C(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The proposal was contested by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner, who adjudicated the dispute, disallowed the above credit and ordered recovery thereof with interest and imposed a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »