Delhi Court September 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.
S.N. Gupta, Vs. Registrar Coop. Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT598
Khan, J. 1. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioners claim to have become members of respondent society. A share certificate was also issued to them on payment of Rs. 100/- way back in 1981, but they fell in red and allegedly defaulted. The Society's General Body consequently resolved to expel them by Resolution dated 4.9.1983, intimation whereof was sent to Registrar for approval on 16.10.1983. But nothing was heard from Registrar thereafter, though petitioners claim to have approached the society and him also several times to know their fate.3. Meanwhile, respondent society was superseded on 19.9.1996 and An Administrator appointed to it which was challenged by some members in Civil Writ Petition No. 100/97. While this petition was pending, petitioners filed CM 1092/89 in this for their impleadment and obtained order dated 12.4.1999 whereby liberty was granted to them to approach newly appointed...
Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR296(Delhi); 101(2002)DLT459; 2003(66)DRJ717
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. In response to the invitation to tender No. PE-3/AM-7/ RC-0983/MT/Batteries/defense/83-84/77 of the respondent the petitioner submitted their quotation bearing reference No. G-1/984/84 dated 5th March, 1984. In the said tender the petitioner inter alias provided as under :'Prices offered for dry and uncharged batteries F.O.R. station of dispatch i.e. F.O.R. Baliganj/Sealdah/Howrah. If we are to dispatch any consignment of batteries from Shalimar Railway Station which is 20 kms. from our factory, then we shall charge Rs. 5/- extra for each battery.'2. Pursuant to a meeting held between the petitioner and the respondent on 10th May, 1984 the respondent informed the petitioner vide letter dated 23rd June, 1984 that the indenter of the consignee was from the defense department. In the circumstances any store dispatch by rail would be under M/C note which was supplied to the petitioner either by the inspectorate or consignee. The respondent called upon the petitioner to i...
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Chaman Lal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT512; 2003(69)DRJ35
R.C. Chopra J.1. This suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and in the alternative recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.2. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 24.4.1995. In support of his case the plaintiff filed his affidavit and proved on record the documents Ex. PI to Ex. P17. The agreement to sell is Ex. P8.3. I have heard learned Counsel of the plaintiff. I have gone through the records.4. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that in the year 1977 his firm M/s. Joti Ram Ramesh Kumar was inducted as a tenant in a shop in property No. 83, Rampuri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 300/- The defendant No. 1 received advance rent also. In the year 1984 the plaintiff's father Joti Ram died and such the plaintiff became the sole proprietor of firm M/s. Joti Ram Ramesh Kumar. He continued as a tenant in the shop. In the year ...
Educomp Datamatics Limited Vs. Directorate of Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT917
Devinder Gupta, J. 1. Quashing of Clause 7.1(f) of Tender No. DE 45 (652)VE/CEP/202-2002 (Annexure P. 1) issued by the respondent has been sought by the petitioners in these petitions, which requires the bidders, bidding for implementation of the project, to have a turn over of at least Rs. 20 crores each year for the last three financial years up to 31.3.2002, inter alia, on the grounds being arbitrary and unreasonable and vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. For every relevant academic year, respondent floats tender for handling Computer Education Project in various Government and Government aided Senior Secondary Schools in Delhi. The petitioners have given details of the terms and conditions of the earlier tenders, more particularly with respect to the requirement to the eligibility criteria in the tender bids of the bidder of having a turn over of at least Rs. 2 crores each year for the last three financial years. It is urged that in the eligibility criteria in t...
Kartar Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT495TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture steel ingots from steel scrap. On 17-5-94 their factory premises were visited by the Central Excise staff of Amritsar Division. On verification of the finished goods, it was ascertained that there was an excess of 25 pieces of steel ingots weighing 2456.250 kgs. as against the balance recorded in their RG. 1 Register. Accordingly, these ingots valued at Rs. 21,615/- were seized.The visiting officers also found shortage of 35.280 MTs of steel scrap valued at Rs. 3,10,464/-, Accordingly they were issued a show cause notice dated 14-11-94 by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar in which it was alleged that the party had removed the steel scrap found short after converting it into steel ingots and cleared them without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 46,570/- in violation of the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is liable to be recovered from them under Rule 9(2) and under Section 11A of the Central ...
Cce Vs. Surya Roshni Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC156
1. The facts of the case are that the respondents (manufacturers of bulbs and glass shells) had cleared certain quantity of glass shells on payment of duty to their customers, M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd.; that the customers found the goods defective and returned the same to the respondents; that the respondents on receipt of the returned goods filed D-3 intimation with the jurisdictional Range Supdt. of Central Excise; that they remelted the goods and re-made fresh glass shells out of it and cleared the product on payment of duty to some other customer; that they claimed refund of the duty originally paid, under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the goods returned by M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. were only scrap and its value was below the duty of excise paid originally by the assessee; that the aggrieved assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter sanctioned the refund, after reversing the ...
National Winder Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT304TriDel
1. In this application, the appellants pray for recalling the order passed by this Bench on 5-4-2002 rejecting the ROM application filed by them. In the ROM application, the appellants pointed out what they considered as an apparent mistake in Final order No.A/1519/2001/NB(SM), dated 18-10-2001. When the ROM application was taken up for hearing, there was no appearance of, or representation for, the party. An ex parte order was passed, wherein it was observed that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The ROM application, thus, got rejected.2. Today ld. Counsel for the applicants reiterates the grounds stated in the application and argues that the inference of concession drawn by the Bench from the first sentence of para 3 under "grounds of appeal" in the memorandum of appeal is erroneous. Ld. Counsel elaborates his point by reading the entire para 3. On a perusal of paragraph No. 3 under "grounds of appeal" in the memorandum of appeal, I find much force in the submission mad...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhagwati Ispat Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC187
1. This is an appeal filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal.This appeal has been filed on 17-6-2002 pursuant to the order of review dt. 2-5-2002.2. Shri Mewa Singh, Id. DR appears for the appellant and Shri R.Santhanam, Id. Counsel appears for the respondent. At the outset Id.Counsel for the respondent submits that appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable inasmuch as M/s. Bhagwati Ispat Ltd. had filed an appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order and the Tribunal had decided the appeal on 5-2-2002. It was submitted by the Id. Counsel that Revenue has filed its appeal on 17-6-2002 against the same impugned order. He submits that since on the date of decision by the Tribunal i.e.5-2-2002, there was no appeal filed by Revenue and that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. IML Ltd. (Scooter Division) reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 431 and the Larger Bench of this Tribunal held : "24. We, therefore, hold that appeal filed by the Revenue...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT186TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 19-3-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has reversed the order-in-original dated 19-10-2001 of the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the refund claim of the respondents.2. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 30,78,912/- on the ground that during the period from 1-11-99 to 29-2-2000 they had cleared excisable goods from the factory gate at the prices declared under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, but those goods were subsequently sold from their depots at lower prices. On receipt of their application for refund claim, a show cause notice was issued to them as to why this claim should not be rejected on the ground that the duty was paid correctly at the prices prevailing at the time of removing of the goods. The Deputy Commissioner rejected their claim through the order-in-original. But the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the same.4. It is not in dispute that...
Smt. Janak Vohra Vs. Dda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ504
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has field this petition for mutation in her favor since the petitioner claims to be the only legal heir of the deceased father in whose name the flat stands registered and the Will is stated to have been executed by the late father on 7.3.93 in favor of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced the record and states that the respondent has received two applications. The first application is by the petitioner for mutation of the flat in her name and the second application is for conversion into freehold of the flat by the brother of the deceased owner who is the Uncle of the petitioner and who claims title on the basis of an agreement to sell coupled with power of attorney of 1997. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is further stated that the copy of the Will dated 7.3.1996 submitted by the petitioner mentions the factum of the execution of the earlier Will by the original allottee in favor of the Smt. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »