Delhi Court August 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.
Cce Vs. Avon Beauty Products (i) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC522
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed: As the samples put up before me show that the label affixed by the appellants on the package do not contain all the details which are needed to be put up on 'labels', I do not consider that the activity undertaken by the appellants can be covered under Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 to constitute "manufacture" for the purpose of levy and collection of duty of excise and the imported goods. Hence, I allow the appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondent herein are engaged in the import and marketing of cosmetics. They are re-labelling these products in their warehouse. Central Excise Officers alleged that the activity of labelling/re-labelling of the said cosmetics amounted to manufacture of an excisable commodity which were being sold without being cleared by Central Excise Department and without ...
O.P. Goyal Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC39
1. O.A. No. 390/2000 filed by the 1st respondent-IFCI Ltd. against the 2nd respondent-Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd., appellant-O.P. Goyal and others is pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (herein referred as "DRT"). Appellant-O.P. Goyal filed a Miscellaneous Application for stay of further proceedings on the ground that a reference under Section 15(a) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is pending. But the said application was opposed by the 1st respondent herein on the ground that the BIFR has on 11.5.2000 permitted the legal proceedings to be taken. The said application for stay was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT on 13.9.2001. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.202/2001 before this Tribunal against the said order and had also filed the orders dated 11.5.2000, 7.7.2000, 1.9.2000 and 15.11.2000 passed by the BIFR. By relying on these documents, the appellant contended that there was no permission in favour of the ...
Media Transasia India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi27; 100(2002)DLT236
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for grant of ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from placing on board of Indian Airlines and Alliance Air Flights, their offices and in lounges at various Airports in the country, any other in-flight magazine except the plaintiffs magazine named 'SWAGAT'. In the course of the arguments, however, Shri Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Advocate for the plaintiffs has limited his prayer to interim injunction for restraining the defendant No. 1 from putting on the flights of Indian Air Lines only the proposed Magazine 'DARPAN' which is being printed by defendant No. 3 for defendant No. 2, Alliance Air.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that the plaintiffs had entered into an Agreement dated...
Munish Gupta and ors. Vs. Ram Dass and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT618; [2003]42SCL624(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J.1. 1. Petitioners filed this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') seeking appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes referred to in para No. 13 of the petition which respondents 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3 have contested by filing replies.2. Copy of partnership deed filed Along with petition would show that firm-Shankar Lal Rishi Kumar was constituted on 1st April, 1993 with Ram Dass, M/s. Ram Dass Sharma & Sons, HUF, Smt. Pushpa Gupta, Smt. Preeti Gupta, Yogendra Sharma and Munish Gupta as partners thereof, to carry business of Shawls at 85, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk. Smt. Pushpa Gupta died on 5th December, 1997. Rajiv Gupta, petitioner No. 3 and Pankaj Gupta, respondent No. 4 are the legal heirs of Smt. Pushpa Gupta, deceased. Petitioners 1 & 2 and respondents 1 to 3 are the other partners of said firm. Clause 18 of aforesaid partnership deed provides that all disputes and matters relating to the firm bey...
Smt. Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi Vs. Shri Shyam Sunder Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: I(2003)DMC52
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a judgment and decree dated 8th September 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in FAO 501/99.2. The fact of the matter is as follows:3. The parties were married on 18th November 1981. They have been living separately since February 1987.4. Shri Shyam Sunder Kohli, the respondent/appellant in LPA 82/2001, filed an application for divorce purported to be under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife, the respondent herein. It was further alleged that there had been no cohabitation between them. The respondent contested the said application on diverse grounds. Before the learned Additional District Judge, both the parties adduced their respective evidences. By a judgment dated 5th October 1999, the Trial Judge dismissed the petition. The appellant preferred an appeal there against before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge rejected...
Modi Rubbers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(150)ELT52(Del)
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of a notification dated 14th July 1978 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is in question in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes. On or about 30th March 1979, a notification was issued under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules for the purpose of granting of an incentive to smaller tyre companies in terms whereof factories whose annual capacity did not exceed five lakh number of tyres and five lakh number of tubes were entitled to the benefit of remission of duty as specified therein. However, exemption of 25% of the duty livable was given in respect of smaller units which were new units and commenced production after 1st April 1976. Furthermore, concessional rate of duty not exceeding 75% of the licensed capacity of the factory for the financial year 19...
Ashok Batra S/O Shri Karam Chand Batra, Mehrauli, New Delhi, Vs. the S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT642; I(2003)DMC287; 2003(67)DRJ91
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Ashok Batra and three others (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated 28th November, 2000 and 29th November, 2000 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 306/34 and 498A/34 Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. In default of payment of fine they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Rs. 60,000/- out of which...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR83(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT65
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This application filed under Section 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 seeks to make the award dated 30th August, 1996 given by Shri R.L. Meena, Additional Secretary, Law, Govt. of India as a Rule of the Court. Simultaneously, the petitioner have also sought the dismissal of the objections filed by the respondent UOI under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to the said award.2. The claimant/plaintiff averred as under:- (a) The dispute involved in the present petition arises from supply of 13 Crash Fire Tenders (CFTs) which were offered by the claimant to the respondent by its letter dated 5th March, 1990 @ Rs. 34,05,000/- per unit for the supply for 13 units or supply of 6 units @ Rs. 35,01,000/- each. The letter of the claimant as per Clause 9 sought an Essentiality Certificate to enable the claimant to import fire power, accessories etc. Thereafter pursuant to the negotiations between the parties on 4th April, 1990, letter dated 5th...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT186
ORDERMahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Two cross cases have been registered in respect of the same incident. The case FIR No. 709/02 is registered on the complaint of the petitioner under Section 324, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In the instant case the allegation is that the petitioner has given stab injuries with knife and stabbed on the stomach of the complainant which caused injuries 2.5 x 1.5 cm., on the lower chest 2.5 x 2 cm., on the skull 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. and 6 x 0.5 cm. apart from another stab wound on (sic.) muscle 5 x 1.5 cm. and 5 x 1.5 cm. and the injured was discharged on the next date. APP has stated that the doctor has not yet given the opinion about the nature of the injury whether it was grievous or simple although two months have passed. The injured was discharged on the following day.2. Keeping in view the allegations made that the assailant party was armed with knife and a sword and a cross case has been registered and the case is also likely t...
Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi Vs. Shyam Sunder Kohli
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT558
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These two letter patent appeals arise out of a judgment and decree dated 8th September, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO 501/99.The fact of the matter is as follows:The parties were married on 18th November, 1981. They have been living separately since February, 1987.Shri Shyam Sunder Kohli, the respondent/appellant in LPA 82/2001, filed an application for divorce purported to be under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife, the respondent herein. It was further alleged that there had been no cohabitation between them. The respondent contested the said application on diverse grounds. Before the learned Additional District Judge, both the parties adduced their respective evidences. By a judgment dated 5th October, 1999, the Trial Judge dismissed the petition. The appellant preferred an appeal there against before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge reje...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »