Delhi Court July 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.
Rajinder Singh Brothers and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1188; AIR2003Delhi99; 99(2002)DLT164; 2002(64)DRJ242
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment dated 25th April, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the Appeal of the appellant against the judgment dated 6th October, 1979 passed by the learned Sub-Judge was dismissed, the appellants have preferred the instant Appeal.2. The suit for damages was filed by the appellants against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- on account of damages suffered by it due to the negligence of the respondent. The consignment compromising of 438 cases containing 161-175 oranges, 56 cases having 96-112 oranges and 105 cases containing 191-212 oranges plus one gift case was booked by appellant No. 1 as consignor. Reasonable time for transit of similar consignment was four days but he above said consignment was detained or delayed by the respondent and was delivered after six days of the date of booking in damaged and devalued condition. The respondents assessed the damages 10% 90% and 50% respectively. Beside this there...
Tci Shipping Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT182
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner in this case has challenged the award of contract to respondent No. 2 for transportation of 10,000 Metric Tonnes of MOL Choption Food grains/sugar by sea, from Vishakapatnam to Port Blair. The grievance of the petitioner is that contracts are being awarded to the respondent No. 2 repeatedly, despite persons like the petitioner and other bidders being fully eligible and having better tonnage capacity and offering reasonable rates.3. Petitioner claims that he was also eligible having the ships and tonnage of the requisite capacity in the present case. The respondent did not accept the offer of petitioner and others.4. Learned counsel for Union of India, Mr. Luthra, opposing the writ petition submits that one of the ships of the petitioner was with the capacity of 1229 MT, which was less than 2,000 and 3,000 Metric Tonnes as required and stipulated. Besides, it is stated that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Indu Bala Chhabra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR111(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), from the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), on January 31, 2002, in I. T. A. No. 91/Delhi of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1991-92.2. The background facts, in brief, are :The respondent hereinafter referred to as the assessed, derives income from medical profession. In her return for the relevant assessment year she declared an income of Rs. 1,14,330 as income from profession. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the previous year the assessed had received a sum of Rs. 26,32,000 on the sale of some shops and flats but had not declared any capital gains on the plea that the sale consideration had been deposited in the specified capital gains bank account in terms of Section 54(2) of the Act. Rejecting the stand of the assessed that the property was resident...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Thio Pharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC704Tri(Delhi)
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicaments. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents for denial of SSI exemption on the ground that they were clearing the goods under the brand name of SYNTHIKO. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of small scale exemption and confirmed the demand. The respondents filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of small-scale exemption in respect of following items on the ground that goods were cleared under the brand name of respondents which is displayed prominently on the wrapper/packing, and name of the marketing was displayed in only small letters and these do not bear any mark of marketing firm.3. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal in respect of two items that is Brosmin Forte Tablet and Bestrodyrly Syrup on the...
Freedom International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC419Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Freedom International the issue involved is whether their request for conversion of DEEC Shipping Bill into DEEC-cum-drawback Shipping Bill deserves to be accepted by the Commissioner.2. Shri. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants export bicycle tyres and tubes; that during the year 1999 they exported the goods against advance Licence No. 0021403, dated 5-2-99 and filed three shipping bills dated 26-3-99, 31-3-99 and 16-4-99 under DEEC Scheme; that the Appellants were permitted to import the raw material free of basic Customs duty but they were required to pay Additional Customs duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act; that while filing Shipping Bill for export the Appellants failed to take into consideration the fact that they are entitled to claim drawback of the additional Customs duty paid by them on the raw materials; that subsequent to the filing of the Shipping Bill they came across Public Notice No. 14/98, dated 1-9-...
Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT667TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture CR Coils/sheets, GP coils/ sheets, GC sheets & Oxygen gas falling under Chapters 72 and 28. They availed Modvat credit of Rs. 2,16,000/- on fabricated steel tanks falling under sub-heading 7311.00 as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. These fabricated steel tanks were mounted on vehicles which were used for carrying propane fuel. The motor vehicle on which the steel tanks were mounted, are themselves classified under sub-heading 8704.20 and are received in their factory under the invoice issued by M/s. S.V. Tank & Vessel Ltd., Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. The Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Ghaziabad vide his Order dated 5-6-2000 has observed that these tanks fall under sub-heading 7311.00 which does not find place in the definition of the capital goods under Rule 57Q. Therefore, the Modvat credit on the same is not admissible and has confirmed the demand of aforesaid amount on them.The party filed an appeal but ...
infar (India) Limited Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(104)LC973Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved, in this appeal filed by M/s. Infar (India) Ltd., is whether the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Customs duty claimed by them.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants had filed ten bills of Entry claiming classification of Agglutinating Sera for the detection of human chorionic gonadotrophin in urine under Sub-heading 3002.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, read with Notification No. 208/81-Cus dated 22.9.1981 which was upheld by the Tribunal vide Order Nos. 636-637/96-C dated 14.10.1996; that they then filed refund claims which were denied to them by the Assistant Commissioner on account of applicability of principle of unjust enrichment holding that the Appellants had not been able to prove by any documentary evidence that the duty was borne by them, and that the Customs duty was not indicated in balance sheet as outstanding/recoverable; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also under the im...
J.S. Anand and ors. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC624
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common Order-in-original dated 18.4.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs vide which he had imposed penalty of different amounts, on them under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals may briefly be stated as under: On the basis of specific intelligence, the officers of the DRI intercepted two tempoes loaded with goods, in front of godown-cum-residence located at Vikas Nagar. Appellant Dhiraj Singh was present at the spot at that time holding mobile in his hand. The two tempoes were found loaded with ball bearings with markings of foreign origin. The search of the godown was also taken and from there also ball bearings of foreign origin were recovered. The tempoes and the ball bearings were taken to the office of the DRI where panchnama was drawn bearing the date 2.5.98. On the way to DRI office, from the godown, Attar Pal Singh appellant was also taken along while...
Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara Vs. Adarsh Re-rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC808Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a reference from the Division Bench. The issue for consideration has been stated in Para 5 of the referral order (Misc.Order No. 114/2001-B) [2002 (140) E.L.T. 161 (T)] as under :- "5. We have considered the submissions. The question before us is whether the respondents' products made from re-rollable scrap and cleared during the period of dispute were exempt from duty under the cited Notifications. It appears that 'waste and scrap' of iron and steel, within the coverage of which the appellant seeks to put the assessee's re-rollable scrap, was falling under CET Heading 72.03 during an earlier part of the period of dispute and was under Heading 72.04 for the rest of the period. The Board's circular has held that Heading 72.04 would cover only such waste and scrap as would generally be used for re-melting and consequently would not cover re-rollable scrap and, further that denial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 202/88-C.E. on the ground that re-rollable scr...
J.B. Dadachanji Vs. Ravinder NaraIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT663
D.K. Jain, J.1. Over four decades ago, three eminent lawyers, JBD, RN and OCM decided to carry on their profession jointly as a firm under the name and style of J.B. Dadachanji & Co., little Realizing that one day their legal acumen would be tried and tested in the law courts against each other . Pursuant thereto, a somewhat complicated, Deed of Partnership was executed between the three on 1 July 1961, setting out the terms and conditions agreed upon between them. The deed contained an arbitration clause, which reads as under:'31. That in the event of any dispute with regard to any matter (sic) relating to the firm, its affairs andits partners, the matter shall be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri M.C. Setalvad, failing him Shri C.K. Daphtary and in the event of both of them refusing, then to an arbitrator mutually agreed upon, failing which to an arbitrator appointed by the Court.'2. The original Deed of Partnership was modified from time to time but the arbitration clause rem...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »