Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Koshika Telecom Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL145(Delhi)
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31st May, 2002 thereby disposing an application under Section 9 of the Act filed by the appellant-Company for a restraint order/direction on the respondent-Department of Telecommunications (in short 'DOT') from terminating the public switched telephone network connecting license for U.P. (East and West circle) allotted to them on 12th December, 1995 pending arbitration of the disputes/differences which are stated to have arisen between the parties. However, it appears that during the course of hearing of the said application before the learned Single Judge, the appellant confined his prayer in regard to the connecting license for U.P. (East) Circle only.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the disputes between the parties have been noted in detail by the learned Single Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat th...
Janardhan Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT481; 2003(1)SLJ168(Delhi)
Khan, J.1. Petitioner retired from Army Service sometime in 1989. He was thereafter re-employed as Driver in (SPG) Special Protection Group by order dated 21.6.1991. His re-employment order stipulated that it would be initially for one year and then extendable up to three years on year to year basis. He served a full term of three years which was again extended by three more years. He was eventually relieved on 17.4.1997 after completing his six-year stint. He made representations against this which was rejected. He has now filed this petition for quashing this order and also the Cabinet Secretariat Order dated 16.12.1991 fixing six years term for ex-serviceman in SPG.2. Petitioner's case is that once he was appointed in the Special Protection Group, he was entitled to continue under Section 11 of Special Protection Group Act till his superannuation. He also challenges Cabinet Secretariat order dated 16.12.1991 fixing the maximum 6 year term for ex-servicemen as arbitrary, unreasonable...
British India Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Khariti Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC590(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of present suit, the plaintiff prays for permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in Blankets, Shawls, Lohis and other woollen piece made goods under the trade mark KASHGARI, trade mark Nos. 70, 100, 170, 111, Kailashgari, Vaishali, Alaknanda and Neelgiri and device of a Lamb as well as the mark KASHGIRI as part of their trading style and from any other mark or device which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trade mark and device.2. The plaintiff is a Government company dealing in manufacturing of woollen goods i.e. Kashgari Lohies, Shawls, Lohies, Blankets, Suiting etc. The plaintiff claims to be the user of marks being No. 70 Lohis, No. 100 Lohis, No. 170 Lohis, No. 111 Lohis, Kailashgiri (No. 3542), Alaknanda Lohis, Neelgiri Lohis and Vishali Lohis since 19.11.1974 to 25.5.1985. The plaintiff is the registered proprie...
Arti Dass Vs. Tirath Parkash Sharma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(64)DRJ747
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. Heard. In this appeal an interesting question has arisen about the status and right of divorced daughter of the deceased tenant to stay and period of stay in the tenanted premises.2. Premises were taken in Rent by Late Sh. R.N. Das, father of the petitioner. He died in the year 1965. Tenancy of his wife Smt. Bakul Rani Das was terminated. It is submitted that notice was invalid for the petitioner also inherited tenancy rights Along with mother and other sisters. Secondly, it is argued that the appellant had never surrendered her tenancy and being daughter, she continued to be tenant and the impugned order is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the appellant further expects this Court to accept that the pleadings were 'loosely drafted' and it wrongly gives an impression that she claimed rights to stay in the premises only through her mother and not independently. 3. On the other hand it is argued that the respondent did not remain a family member after her marriage. She ha...
imaging Software Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT60TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 24-3-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. Under challenge is the redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs plus Rs. 1,50,000/-, penalties of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000/- imposed under the impugned order.2. Shri Rajendra Katyar, learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. The learned Counsel submitted that the appellants have a unit set up in NEPZ Noida approved by the Ministry of Commerce vide letter of approval No. 3/2/95-NEPZ-Auto dated 9-5-95, issued by the Development Commissioner, NEPZ, Noida as per provisions of Export-Import Policy, for manufacture and export of software from the Zone. The appellants imported capital goods (Computer and Accessories) free of customs duty in terms of Notification No. 133/94-Cus. dated 22-6-94 and indigenously manufactured capital goods (Air-conditioners) without payment of excise duty in terms of Notification No.126/94-C.E., dated 2-9-94 during the period from 27...
Shriram Rayons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT620TriDel
1. Having examined the records and heard both sides, I am convinced of the need to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to deal with the appeal.2. The appeal is against Order-in- Appeal No. 215/2002, dated 21-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). As per the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the assessee to the Commissioner (Appeals) against an adverse order passed by the original authority has been dismissed as "infructuous and unmaintainable". The reason recorded for the dismissal of the appeal is that the identity of the signatory of the memorandum of appeal had not been disclosed and that the entries in Form EA.-I were not verified as required under the relevant rules of procedure.Ld. Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that the EA-I form filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been verified by the appellants and that the identity of the person who signed the memorandum of appeal had not been ...
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT221TriDel
1. The only issue arising in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the appellants are entitled to refund of an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- on the ground that while arriving at the assessable value of the goods the assessing authority had incorrectly not allowed US $ 10,395.40 worth of discount. The assessing authority rejected the claim holding that though in the invoice the nature of the discount had not been described, in the quotation dated 7-8-97 of M/s. Lab. India, the Indian agent of the supplier, the discount has been shown as 'special discount' and therefore, it is liable to be added in the assessable value. The above order was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order dated 27-2-2002. Aggrieved by the above orders the importer-assessee which is a cooperative society has come up in appeal.The only question to be considered is whether the discount was in the nature of a special discount or was it available to all purchasers from the foreign seller, namely, M...
Cce Vs. Bhaskar Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC65
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that there is no time limit for availing credit under the Modvat Scheme on capital goods and that there is no provision for prior permission for taking credit provided under the Rule.2. The respondent assessee had a project to set up a composite mill for spinning, weaving and processing. The first phase related to cotton yarn spinning of different counts. For this phase of the project the company imported capital goods and installed the same during March 1996. They availed modvat credit on its capital goods since the finished product, namely, cotton yarn was dutiable. After manufacturing cotton yarn during the first year and after creating good export market for the same, it went into the second phase of manufacturing grey fabric, a product which is non-dutiable. This part of the project was implemented in September 1998 by using both imported and indigenous...
Cce Vs. Syncom Formulation (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC55
1. Revenue has filed these eight appeals on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in setting aside the penalty by holding that the respondents had not kept back any information and nothing was suppressed from the Department. Since the issue in all the eight appeals is the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of various type of pharmaceutical products namely P&P Medicaments and other medicaments. During the scrutiny of the declaration filed by the respondent herein, Departmental Authorities observed that the respondent had classified certain medicaments under Chapter sub-heading 3003.39 attracting Central Excise Duty @ 8%. It was alleged that as per Chapter Note 2(ii) of Chapter 30 for the purpose of heading No. 30.03 'Patent or proprietory medicaments' means any drugs or medicinal preparations, in whatever form, for use in t...
Cce Vs. thermotech Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC564
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) ordering re-quantification of duty on the basis of cum duty price.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. It was alleged that during the period Nov. 1993 to 1995-96, the appellants cleared excisable goods clandestinely without accounting for the same in the statutory records on duplicate/parallel set of invoices and had evaded Central Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 77,04,883. The Commissioner of Central Excise while adjudicating the case confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 58.39 lakhs against an alleged evasion of duty of Rs. 77.05 lakhs.The Central Board of Excise reviewed the order of the Ld. Commissioner whereunder he had allowed abatement taking the entire consideration of the clandestinely cleared goods to be cum duty price.3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri R.D. Negi, Ld. DR submits that the decision of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »