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.
Durga Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC350
1. The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 31-10-2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the duty and imposed penalties on the appellants as detailed in the order itself.2. The appellant No. 1 is a Proprietorship firm engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala (Sada and Guthka) in the brand name of Pukar falling under sub-heading No. 2105.00 of CETA. The appellant No. 2, Shri Rajkumar Chaurasia, Prop. of M/s. R.P. Products and appellant No.5, Shri Uday Chand Chaurasia Prop. of M/s. U.P. Marketing are engaged only in the trading of Pan Masala as well as in the raw materials required for the manufacture of Pan Masala. The appellant No. 3, Shri Pankaj Chaurasia, was the landlord of the premises where pouching machines of the firm, appellant No. 1, were found to have been installed at the relevant time; while appellant No. 4, Shri N.K.Pandey, was the accountant in the firm, at that time. On 24-9-1997, t...
Maan Singh Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT693; II(2002)DMC521
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate arising out of FIR No. 441/1998 under Section 498A IPC of P.S. Malviya Nagar.2. Briefly, the facts are that Kulwant Kaur filed a complaint with the Crime Against Women cell, Nanakpura alleging harassment and cruelty caused to her by her husband Maan Singh, petitioner herein, and other members of his family for demand of money and for other reasons which have been narrated in the complaint. On the basis of this complaint FIR No. 441/1998 under Section 498A/406 IPC was registered. During the investigation the supplementary statement of complainant and her parents etc. was recorded. On completion of the investigation a challan was submitted for the prosecution of the petitioner and other members of his family under Section 498A/406 IPC. At the time of consideration of the case for framing of a charge the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged ...
Sanjeev R. Apte Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ369; 99(2002)DLT567
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner is seeking quashing of order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated 25.11.2000 by which he had served a notice in accordance with Section 251 Cr .PC asking the petitioner whether he pleaded guilty or not or has he any defense to make.2. Succinctly stated the facts are that the respondent has filed a complaint for prosecution and punishment of the petitioner herein, co-accused M/s. AEC (India) Limited and Mr. R.D. Apte for committing offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act). The allegations made in the complaint, briefly, are that M/s AEC (India) Limited, (hereinafter accused No.1) entered into a lease agreement dated 30.9.1994 with the complainant company agreeing to pay rent every quarter and for discharging its liability for the quarter June, 1998 to August, 1998 it issued a cheque dated 30.6.1998 for Rs. 5,43,765/- drawn on ...
Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs. Mohammed Jaros and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ102; 99(2002)DLT504
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of an Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dated 22.8.2000 passed in a revision petition whereby he has set aside the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.10.1999 and has restored the criminal complaint which was dismissed in default.2. The facts are simple. The respondent filed a complaint for prosecution of the petitioner for committing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It was fixed before the Magistrate on 16.10.1999 on which date the complainant did not attend hearing. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. This order was challenged by the respondent in a revision petition preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge though agreed with the petitioner accused that revision petition was not maintainable but was of the view that the court in exercise of the power vested by Section 397 Cr.P.C. may examine t...
Smt. Sipra Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1407; AIR2002Delhi485; 101(2002)DLT25
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner, the widow of late Shri M.N. Chatterjee, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in rejecting her claim under the Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 111793283, for the death of her husband. Respondent LIC rejected the claim on the ground that the insurance policy had lapsed on account of failure to pay the premium. It however offered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- being the paid up value of the policy, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are given hereinafter: 2. Petitioner's husband late Shri M.N. Chatterjee, a young advocate, met with an accident on 1.3.1997. He was hit by a truck belonging to the Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF). Petitioner was immediately rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Petitioner claims as a result of the serious head injuries sustained, her husband Mr. M.N. Chatterjee ...
Devanand S/O Shri Balbir Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ242; 102(2003)DLT708; 2003(66)DRJ703
V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Devanand (hereinafter described as the appellant) directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi dated 31st January, 2000. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The facts of the prosecution case are that Sushila, prosecutrix is stated to be only 13 years of age at the relevant time. She made a complaint against the appellant that she had been raped by the appellant by threatening her that if she discloses this fact to any person her parents would be killed. The appellant was a tenant in the house where Sushila lived with her parents. The complaint had been made after the appellant vacated the premises.3. This led the proc...
T.T. Limited Vs. Sonali Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT816
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of US $ 42,371.15.2. Briefly the facts are that on 18.1.1996, an order was placed on the plaintiff by one M/s. Inaa Trading & Company, Dhaka, Bangladesh in the name of defendant No. 2 for exporting to Bangladesh the goods described as 'Cotton combed Yarn on Autocone'.A letter of credit for Us $ 40,680/- was advised on 24.1.1996 through State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, New Delhi. As per the terms of the Letter of Credit, the goods were shipped to defendant No. 2. An authorised representative of defendant No. 2, M/s. Sincere Export conducted pre-shipment inspection of the consignments and confirmed that the merchandise had been shipped strictly as per specifications/quality/quantity and others terms as per the terms of Letter of Credit dated 18.1.1996. Vide letters dated 12.2.1996 and 13.2.1996, plaintiff advised the defendant No. 3 that the consignments had been properly shipped to defendant No. 2 and the same we...
Dullop India Limited Vs. A.A.i.F.R. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas779(Delhi); (2003)134PLR28
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 28th June, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'AAIFR') which dismissed the application No. 36/2002 filed by the petitioner company. The writ petition is confined to the directions continued in paragraph 42 of the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the 'BIFR') which was related to directions to clear small dues. This direction was impugned unsuccessfully before the AAIFR leading to this writ petition. Paragraph 42 of the order of the BIFR reads as under:-- '42. Shri Gurdeep Singh, a creditor in respect of lease rentals and payment of electricity dues for the premises taken on rent by the company submitted that his dues of Rs. 96,000/- were not paid by the company despite directions of the Bench. He was holding a decree from the Civil Court for recovery of his dues. The Bench noted that th...
British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Firm Anand Parkash Om Parkash and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT530
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Plaintiff filed this suit alleging that it is a limited liability company and has one mill known as Cawnpore Woollen Mill at Kanpur and another mill known as New Egerton Woollen Mill at Dhariwal. P.C. Jain is authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute suit on behalf of plaintiff-Corporation. Both the mills manufacture woollen goods, Defendant No. 1 had been a partnership firm having defendants 2 to 4, 8 to 10, Suresh Kumar Goyal and Om Prakash Goyal, deceased as its partners. Defendant No. 1 had been buying woollen goods from the said two mills. The plaintiff in the accounts maintained at Kanpur and Dhariwal of said two mills debited the price of woollen goods purchased by defendant No. 1 and other expenses including cost of samples and bank charges. Similarly, amounts paid by defendant No. 1 or any other credits granted to it on account of dealings between the parties, were credited in the Mid accounts. In the account books of plaintiff's Cawnpore Woollen...
H.B. Stockholdings Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)127
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.This is an appeal by assessed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-3-2000, decided against the assessment order of assessing officer passed under section 158BC relating to block period from 1-4-1987 to 7-8-1997, involving financial years 1993-94 to 1996-97. As many as 19 grounds of appeal have been taken by the assessed in its appeal.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 8 are against the sustenance of addition of the following amounts, totalling to Rs. 35,95,34,493:Financial yearAmount1993-94 4,24,55,6521994-9512,18,01,3391995-9615,12,37,6201996-974,40,39,8822.1 Ground No. 13 is against not allowing the benefit of loss sustained at Rs. 10,30,23,882 claimed in financial year 1996-97, as the assessment for this year was completed at Nil, against the loss shown as above.2.2 Ground Nos. 9 to 12 are in regard to in not holding the assessment as void ab initio at the end of the Commissioner (Appeals).2.3 Ground Nos. 14, 17, 18 and 19 are general in nature.2.4 Ground No. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »