Delhi Court May 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.
All India Lawyers Union (Delhi Unit) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Delhi107; 98(2002)DLT600; 2002(63)DRJ445
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. A fire broke out at Lal Kuan on 31st May 1999 in a godown of New Aligarh Transport Company, which was a devastating one. 2. A first information report in that behalf was lodged on 31st May 1999 at Police Station Hauz Quazi. Fifty-seven persons had lost their lives and twenty-seven persons suffered burnt injuries in that incident. 3. After this Court entertained the writ petition a Committee was constituted. A magisterial enquiry was ordered purported to be in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.') 4. The report of the Committee suggests that the incident occurred due to negligence on the part M/s. New Aligarh Transport Company in handling highly explosive Chemicals stored in the godown. It further appears that he whole of the walled city is lined with booking offices and godowns of transporters. Consignments are kept by the transporters outside their respective offices/godowns allegedly because of paucity of spac...
Sandeep Johar @ Bhuri @ Deepak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT586
Khan, J.1. Petitioner is said to be a desperate and hardened criminal operating a gang called 'Bhoori Gang'. He was first detained on 23.4.1999 which was quashed by this court in Crl.W. 370/99 vide order dated 14.12.1999. He was thereafter again detained for one year vide order dated 31.10.2001 passed by Police Commissioner under Section 3(2) of National Security Act to prevent him from indulging in any activity prejudicial to public order which is under challenge in the present petition. He made representation against his detention on 19.11.2001 which was, however, rejected by respondents. His detention order was later confirmed which he is questioning now on all conceivable grounds.2. Petitioner's first plea is that there was no compelling necessity and no cogent material for his detention. He was already in custody and there was no prospect of his being let off on bail and thus no need for his detention. The detention order also suffered from non-application of mind as Detaining Aut...
Venus Insulation Products Mfg. Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Goa
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC314Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is against the order dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, pursuant to our remand order dated 18-7-2000 passed in an earlier appeal of the present appellants. The facts of the case are, briefly, as follows :- The appellants had imported from Italy a few hundred pieces of "original sculptures" (CTH 9703.00) and sought clearance thereof under Bill of Entry No. 169, dated 13-1-99 declaring the value of the goods as Rs. 3,76,503/- (CIF).After inspecting the goods, scrutinizing the invoice produced by the party and comparing the declared price with the price of what were claimed to be identical goods mentioned in the price list obtained from Internet, the Customs authorities inferred that the goods were grossly undervalued on FOB basis. They, by show cause notice (SCN), dated 1-3-99, proposed to enhance the value to Rs. 63,87,580/- (FOB) on the basis of the price obtained from Internet, in terms of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Pr...
Haryana Steel Alloys Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC589
1. In the impugned order learned Commissioner disallowed Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 20,22,240.72, imposed a penalty of an equal amount of the credit disallowed and also held that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the amount of modvat credit disallowed. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the proceedings were initiated against the appellant proposing disallowance of modvat credit availed by him during the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97 and proposing imposition of penalty also. The premises of the appellant were searched on 15.11.96 and records were resumed. Statements were also recorded. It was noticed that M/s. Bansal Iron & Steel Traders had sold Iron sheet cutting and iron sheet cutting scrap. The total sale was more than the quantity purchased in comparison to the modvatable scrap purchased from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL). It appeared that the modvatable material purchased from M...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hukumchand Jute and Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT606TriDel
1. M/s. Hukumchand Jute & Industries Ltd. have filed an application for transfer of their case to Kolkata. Shri M. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent company has their registered office in Kolkata and therefore, prays that the appeal may be transferred to Kolkata.2. Shri MM. Dubey, learned DR appearing for the appellant submits that Revenue is the appellant in this case and is ready to argue the case in Delhi. He, opposes the request.3. On careful consideration of the submissions we note that the appellant is Revenue and not the respondent in this case. In the circumstances, since the appellant is not interested for transfer of their case to Kolkata the request for transfer filed by the respondent is rejected. The case should be listed for regular hearing on 10-7-2002....
Chopra Electricals Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(103)LC837Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Notification No.1/93-CE on the ground that they were using the brand name belonging to another person. By the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise demanded duty amounting to Rs. 8,38,899/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants.2. Learned Advocate, Shri M.P. Dev Nath appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that on the dissolution of M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation, the brand name "BENTEX" came to be owned by 3 partners viz. S/Shri Krishan Lal Chopra, Roshan Lal Chopra and Kundan Lal Chopra as per the mutual agreement dated 21.12.1984. The brand name/trade name "BENTEX" was not owned by M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation but was registered in the name of the above 3 persons. M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation was dissolved with effect from 31.3.1984 and as such, the ownership of that firm was over on the brand name "BENTEX". The Chopra brothers have agreed between them that ...
Cce Vs. Kaveri Powertronics (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC211
1. Common issue is involved in these appeals and are, therefore, being taken up together.3. Revenue filed these appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE held that UPSS under chapter heading 85.04 of Central Excise Tariff.4. Revenue filed tha appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and the hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.3.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 342/02 dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.5. In view of above decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the revenue are rejected....
Siemens Ltd., Tata Libert Ltd. and Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC639
2. In these appeals, three-member Bench of the Tribunal, vide Misc.Order No. 131/99-B dated 7.12.1999, held that UPS is classifiable under heading 85.43 and not under heading 85.04 of the Central Excise Tariff.After doubting the correctness of the order, passed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to five-member Bench of the Tribunal. In the case of Luminous Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (129) ELT 805, the Tribunal held that UPS is classifiable under heading 85.04 of the Central Excise Tariff and did not agree with the view taken by the three-member Bench of the Tribunal. Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the five-member Bench of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 1.4.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 342/2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.3. In view of the decision of the five-member of the Tribunal, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, UPS is classifiable under heading 8...
industrial Gases Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC640
2. The case was listed for reporting compliance to the stay order dated 29.1.2002. The Tribunal, vide Stay Order dated 29.1.2002, directed the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. Twenty Lakh.3. The applicants filed a Misc. application for waiver of pre-deposit on the ground of financial hardship.4. As none appeared on behalf of the applicants, the Misc. application is being taken up in absence of the applicants. The aspect of financial hardship has already been considered by the Tribunal while passing the stay order dated 29.1.2002. Therefore, we find no merit in the present application and the same is rejected.5. The appellants have not produced any evidence to show that they have complied with the stay order nor have shown any evidence to comply with the stay order. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Section 35-F of the Act....
Hospital Employees' Union Vs. the Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: 2002VAD(Delhi)130; 98(2002)DLT169; 2002(64)DRJ719; [2002(95)FLR123]; (2002)IIILLJ680Del
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.2. Petitioner, Hospital Employee's Union by this writ petition, seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 3.11.1995 and 23.10.1997 i.e. Annexure P-1 and P-2, by which the prayer of the petitioner for reference of the dispute relating to workman Smt. Ratna Desai to the Industrial Tribunal was rejected, firstly by the Secretary, Labour on 3.11.1995 and thereafter the appeal/review preferred was rejected by the Secretary, Labour, Government of NCT of Delhi, on 23.10.1997.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, has very eloquently put forward the case of the workman. He submits that workman, who as herself a Leprosy Patient after being cured, had been working since 1978 with respondent No. 2 at the Leprosy Centre as a dresser. She had successfully completed a nine months' Leprosy Physiotherapy Technical Course at the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, in 1973. A certificate to this effect has been issued by Hin...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »