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.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT358
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner/MTNL is aggrieved by the award bearing No. MTNL/DGM/(IA)/ARB/6444334/001 dated 23.12.2000, passed by the Arbitrator, Mr. Anil Ailawadi, Dy. General Manager of MTNL. The dispute with regard to the outstanding bills in respect of telephone No. 6444334 were referred to arbitration, pursuant to the order passed in, CW.No. 2251/97 by this Bench on 8.8.2000. MTNL had, accordingly, appointed the arbitrator, who after calling upon the parties, inviting their claims and completion of pleadings, heard the matter, made and published the impugned award.3. Mr. Ravi Sikri, learned counsel for the petitioner, assails the award as being as unreasoned one. He submits that there were three bills, which were subject matter of dispute, namely bill dated 1.9.1996 for Rs. 3,55,491, bill dated 1.11.1996 for Rs. 2102/- and bill dated 1.1.1997 for Rs. 1,66,653/-. The bills are in respect of telephone...
Zuko Engineers Vs. Ministry of Commerce and Indust.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT360; 2003(26)PTC199(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to accept the renewal fee of Rs. 11,900/- submitted by the petitioner for renewal of patent in the category of individual. The question raised is short one. 2. Petitioner has applied for renewal of patent. Petitioner happens to be sole proprietor of the concern M/s Zuko Engineers. The respondents required the petitioner to pay the fee, which was applicable to legal entities other than individuals either alone or jointly. Respondents took the stand that since the name of the patentee is Zuko Engineers, the fee has to be paid for legal entity other than individual. This stand is erroneous in as much as the name of a concern cannot be determinative or decisive of whether the concern is a proprietorship and is owned by individual or is a partnership firm. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Harish Chandra very fairly states that in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he is t...
Manjula, Secy. Home Living Coop. G.H. Society Vs. the Registrar Coop. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT616
Khan, J. 1. Notice under Section 32 of DCSA was issued to petitioner on 10.6.98 alleging several irregularities committed by the society. Petitioner challenges the validity of this notice on the plea that it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 32.2. Interpreting the terms of Section 32, L/C for petitioner Mr. Lekhi submitted that Registrar had first to satisfy himself on requirements on Section 32 to form an opinion and then initiate action commencing with issuance of a show cause notice. In other words, he had to satisfy all the requirements of Section 32 both for issuing the show cause notice and passing of supersession order. Since Registrar had failed, his notice was without jurisdiction. Relevant portion of Section 32 reads thus:-'(1) if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any cooperative society persistently makes default or if it is negligent int he performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the Rules or the bye-laws, or commits any act which ...
Cwt Vs. C.K. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: [2003]127TAXMAN553(Delhi)
ORDERThese applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were filed in the year 1991 and since then the matters are being adjourned to ascertain the final status of the order passed by the Tribunal in the case, of C.K. Gupta (HUF), the respondent herein, on 29-8-1997 in IT Appeal No. 362 (Delhi) of 1993, pertaining to the assessment year 1968-69. Mr. R.D. Jolly, the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue, submits that despite his best efforts he has not been able to get any instructions in this behalf. He submits that as per his instructions the records of the case are not traceable in the department. Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the assessed, on the other hand, submits that according to his instructions the said order has attained finality as the revenue had not filed any reference against the said order.2. We feel that in view of the statement made by Mr. Aggarwal, there is no point in adjourning the matter ag...
Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(105)LC641Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. have filed these three appeals. Since the issue in all the three appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In the impugned order, Ld. Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit, demanded interest, confiscated dies and imposed penalty.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of clutch assembly, fly wheel components, disk components, pressure fly wheel, disc clutch fly pressure etc. They imported 13 sets of dies. They applied for permission of the Commissioner of Central Excise for removing six sets of dies under the provisions of Rule 57S(8) of Central Excise Rules, 44 to M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. was to make use of the said dies in the manufacture of parts and accessories of motor vehicles on behalf of the appellant. Ld. Commissioner accorded permission for removal subject to observance of provisions of Rule 57S(9) and 57S...
Sona Udyog Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC328
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the stay order dated 31.8.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Bhopal rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of an amount of Rs. 27,686 2. The original authority rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the provisions of erstwhile Section 12A, 12B and 11D and the refund claim was hit by the provisions of Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the appellant had neither filed any documentary evidence showing that they had not passed on the incidence of duty paid by them to the customers before the lower adjudicating authority or during the appeal proceedings. In the absence of such evidence the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Section 11B and, therefore, not entitled to any relief.3. The appellant's claim for refund was initially rejected under order in original dated 26.6.92 on the ground that the clearance...
Arora Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC398Tri(Delhi)
1. These are the two appeals filed by the appellants against the common Order dated 17-8-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. Since the issue in both the appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri D.N. Mehta, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco falling under Chapter Heading 2404.40 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A preventive party visited the appellants factory in December, 97 and found that the RG-1 register was written by the appellants up to 1-12-97 and that the goods manufactured on 2nd and 3rd December, 97 had not been entered in the RGl register. It was explained to the officers that this omission has occurred due to the illness of appellant's daughter who had to be admitted in Nursing Home. The balance in stock as per the entry in RG 1 register on 1-12-97 was 570.500 Kgs. In addition,...
Anilmma Associates Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC640
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 21.12.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original dated 7.12.1998 of Asstt.Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 55,00,000 of the appellants.2. The only issue involved in the appeal is, as to whether the appellants are entitled to the refund amount deposited by them before the issue of the show cause notice in a case where after adjudication, the duty demand has been affirmed against them.3. The learned counsel has contended that since the amount was deposited before the issuance of the show cause notice, the appellants are entitled to claim the refund of the same. But we are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel. The amount was deposited by them during the course of the proceedings started against them relating to evasion of the Central Excise duty. They deposited the disputed amount, no doubt before the issuance of the show cause notice to th...
W.G. Maurya Shertaon Hotel and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC929Tri(Delhi)
1. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi--I vide his order dated 26-2-99 has confirmed a duty of Rs. 8,40,949/- on the appellants M/s. W.G. Maurya Shertaon Hotel & Towers and has further imposed a penalty of an amount of Rs. 8,42,000/-on them. He has also directed that the interest at the applicable rate is to be charged from the party under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The parry filed an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi vide his order dated 10-1-2002--but for reducing the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- and setting aside the interest--otherwise rejected the appeal of the party.2. M/s. W.G. Maurya Shertaon Hotel & Towers and the Revenue--both are in appeal against the impugned Order of Commissioner (Appeals). M/s.Maurya Shertaon Hotel & Towers have filed a stay petition for waiver of the balance of the duty amount of Rs. 2,40,949.00 and the penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- confirmed on them by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is on record that the...
Sh. Satbir Singh Vs. Major S.C. Bugg and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas473(Delhi)
A.K. Sikari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th November, 1980 passed by the learned Company Judge in CA No. 138/78. The learned Company Judge has, in the aforesaid judgment, narrated the facts in substantial details, and thereforee, it may not be necessary to repeat the same all over again. To understand the controversy, only material facts may be noted. 2. The appellant, Sh. Satbir Singh, a former ruler of the erstwhile State of Jind and the respondent No. 2 Smt. Inder Bir Kaur were husband and wife. The appellant had an estate at Bhimtal near Nainital. The estate comprised of a villa, a Site Bungalow called Rosery Cottage, Barracks and about 7 acres of land. The appellant and his wife Inder Bir Kaur formed the respondent No. 3 company, called Rajbir Industrial Farms (Pvt.) Limited. As it was a husband and wife company and they were to be the beneficiaries in the event of success of the enterprise, the appellant gave license of 7 acres land for development ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »