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.
Mumtaj @ Behri Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ533; 100(2002)DLT286
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of conviction dated 10th January, 2002 and order on sentence dated 1st February, 2002 passed by learned ASJ whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 3 and 4 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (for short 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 3 of the Act and to undergo RI for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 4 of the Act in case SC. No. 298/01 FIR No. 94/2001 PS Kamla Market, Delhi.2. Briefly narrated the facts leading to the appeal are that on 25th February, 2001 at about 9.30 P.M. SI V.P. Jha, Police Station Kamla Market was on patrolling duty in the area and when they reached at Chowk Nihariyan along with H.C. Makhan Singh, Lady Constable Pulkira, he received a secret information that some girls were illegally confined in Kotha No. 50, G.B. Road. On receipt of this ...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Lawrence Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi226; 100(2002)DLT467; 2003(69)DRJ287
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is a bunch of petitions being taken up together as common question of law arises in all these petitions.2. These petitions filed by the MCD are directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge holding that the cost of insulations, racks and containers could not be added to the cost of construction of the building for determination of the rateable value of the cold storage as they formed a part of the expression 'plant & machinery' in terms of Section 116(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the DMC Act'). The learned Addl. District Judge also held that the registration charges could not be added to the cost of construction of the building for determining the rateable value of the property in question.3. Counsel for the MCD conceded that registration charges could not be added in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godhara Borough Municipality (Godhara) v. Godhara Electricity Co. Ltd. : [1969]73ITR44(SC) .4. She, however, contende...
M.G. Builders and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Ta ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Del)669
1. Heard.2. Admit.3. The following question of law is framed for adjudication :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the refundable deposit taken by the company under lease deed executed on 1st Feb., 1982, was not a 'debt' owned by the company within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983'?4. The appellant shall file within three months ten copies of the cyclostyled paper books, containing all documents on which reliance was placed before the Tribunal, including any order/orders, either in the case of the assessed itself or in case of any other assessed, which has been followed by the Tribunal.The appeal be listed for hearing in the regular course....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Decora Tubes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT703TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals'), Customs Central Excise, Bhopal. The issue relates to whether stock verification on the basis of average weight was acceptable; if the same was normal practice in the particular commodity.2. Shri A.S. Bedi/ learned SDR has appeared on behalf of Revenue and he submitted that the respondents have requested by their letter dated 20th May/ 2002 that the case may be decided on merits.3 Learned SDR pointed out towards pages 13 of the Order-in-Original wherein the adjudicating authority has noted that Shri Gajendra Katiyar, authorised representative of the appellant was asked to explain the reason behind the above mentioned excess stock. Shri Katiyar in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act/1944 on 18-10-97 could not give any specific and satisfactory reason for the excess stock in the factory premises and was satisfied with the manner of the stock taking...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Anant Spg. Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT381TriDel
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Anant Spg. Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Importer) are 100% EOU having a unit in Mandideep at Bhopal manufacturing cotton yarn, synthetic blended yarn for the purpose mostly for export. Sh. V.K. Jain, Chief Executive of M/s. Anant Spinning Mills was the unit head of the factory and in the top management of the company. Being an EOU, the importer claimed certain benefits including those of duty free import under Notification No.53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997 which provides exemption of the whole of customs duty on goods specified in the notification which are needed by them for manufacture of their product, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions like execution of a bond B-17 prescribed by Board's Circular No. 14/98-Cus., dated 10-2-1998. The notification also provides for recommendation from the Development Commissioner, Govt. of India as wel...
Arham Spinning Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC48
1. The appellants manufacture acrylic yarn falling under Chapter 55.They filed refund claims for a total amount of Rs. 18,01,955 in respect of the excise duty paid for the period from April 1999 to December 1999. The refund claims were filed on the ground that the goods manufactured by them were sold at lower prices from their Ludhiana and Delhi depots in comparison to the prices declared and at which the duty was paid at the time of clearance from the factory on stock transfer basis to the respective place of removal. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Bhiwadi has examined these claims and passed a speaking order dated 23.3.200C. He in his order has observed that the contention of the party that the goods were sold at lower prices stand substantiated and they are entitled for refund of duty on merits. He has further observed that in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 every application for refund shall be accompanied by such documentary...
Anand Swaroop Verma and Sherab Shenga Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT78
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. These two Habeas Corpus petitions have been filed with almost identical reliefs. thereforee, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment.2. Criminal Writ 746/02 has been moved on behalf of four persons, namely, Partha Chhetri, Moti Prasad, Maheshwar Dahal and Aditi. According to the petitioner they are being held by the Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, presumably, under the powers conferred by the Foreigners Act. It is incorporated in the petition filed on 12.7.2002 that the morning newspapers published that they have been served with 'Quit India' notices. It is also mentioned in the petition that to the best of the petitioner's knowledge Partha Chhetri is an Indian citizen hailing from Siliguri and there are no legal or other proceedings against him in Nepal.3. In the petition it is prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the 'Quit India' notices. It is also prayed that the writ o...
B.G. Overseas Corp. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(160)ELT136(Del)
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioner company is engaged in the export business. It is alleged that the petitioner has entered into firm contract with M/s. Overseas Trade promotion Centre Ltd., 5-9, Small St. Ultimo, Sydney (Australia) whereby the said foreign buyer placed orders on the petitioner company for the purchase of ladies and gents shirts. By means of the said contract the petitioner was to export/ship 50,000 pieces of ladies shirts at the Unit Price of U.S. Dollars 6.95 per piece and 20,000 pieces of gents shirts at the unit price of U.S. Dollars 6.90 per piece. 2. It is submitted the petitioner while acting on the said contract intended to ship at the first instance a quantity of 18750 pieces. The petitioner drew 4 invoices on the foreign buyer. The petitioner has filed 4 shipping bills between the period 31.3.2002 to 2.4.2002. It is also incorporated in the petition that since the shipping bills were filed for obtaining the benefits of drawback, the officer in exercise of...
Process Syndicate Vs. Central Board of Trustee, Through Regional Provi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT625; [2002(95)FLR981]; (2002)IIILLJ856Del
Vijender Jain, J. 1. The short question involves in this writ petition is that as to whether the impugned order is a speaking order for the purpose of assessing damages under Section 14B of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. Mr. D.N. Vohra has contended that the impugned order, inter alia, states that the end of justice would be met if damages are levied in terms of the enclosed statement. That order cannot be termed as a speaking order for assessing damages as no basis for agreeing to the rates as levied and mentioned in the statement has been given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. To support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Organo Chemical Industries and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1979 L I.C. 1261. Mr. Vohra has further contended that as per the Scheme mentioned in Section 32-A of the Act rate of damages and percentage ...
Mahender Kumar S/O Shri Veer SaIn and Partap Singh S/O Shri Veer SaIn ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT540
V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Mahinder Kumar and another, hereinafter described as the appellants, directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 7th April, 2001 and 11th April, 2001 . The learned trial court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II and Section 324 Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, appellant Mohinder was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. So far as Pratap, appellant, is concerned he was give...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »