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.
Batliboi Limited Vs. Mideast Intergreated Steels Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2005)3CompLJ90(Del)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Mr. Nain, learned counsel for the respondent company prays for an adjournment of one month to place on record some documents to illustrate that tangible results have been achieved in respect of the proposed scheme of arrangement. Keeping in view the fact that the previous undertakings given to this court have been violated with impunity, and that repeated adjournments have been taken by the respondent company in the hearing post, the revival of the petition, this prayer is rejected.2. The brief history of the litigation in this court needs to be recounted. Various winding up petitions have been filed and while they were pending consideration, an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC was considered and allowed by orders dated 19 November 1999. The terms of the application need not to be reiterated, for the reason that the compromise was stillborn inasmuch as payments were not received by any of the petitioning creditors in conformity with the compromise. U...
Mohar Singh @ Pappu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ403
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of two connected appeals arising from the judgment of conviction dated 29th January, 1999 and order of sentence dated 30th January, 1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi thereby convicting the appellants under Sections 363/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months in Sessions Case No. 76/1995 under Sections 363/366/376, IPC Police Station, Kalkaji, FIR No. 415/92.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 31st July, 1992 complainant Rakesh lodged a report to the effect that his daughter namely Geeta aged 13 years is missing from nis house since 29th July, 1992 evening. She had also taken away her clothes and Rs. 400A. In the said report he expressed suspicion on the appellant Mohar Singh @ Pappu who resides in his neighborhood, on this report, a case under Section 363/366, IPC was got reg...
S.C. Agnihotri Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN509(Delhi)
ORDERThe Income Tax Department had filed a criminal complaints under section 276C of Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were summoned. The petitioners appeared in response to summons and they were granted exemption from personal appearance. However, on the next date 15-1-2002, the petitioners who are the resident of Faridabad did not come to the court as they had already been granted exemption the counsel Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate through whom the petitioners were exempted from appearance also did not reach the court in time so the exemption was withdrawn and case was listed for 1-4-2002 for pre charge evidence. Later on petitioners moved another application claiming exemption from personal appearance. That application was supported by the affidavits of the counsel for the petitioner wherein it was averred that Mr. K.R. Manjani, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner could not reach court in time Novel as he was busy in High Court but his junior Mr. N.P. Mishra, Advocate a...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mahavir
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR974]; (2003)ILLJ341Del
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These three LPAs involving similar questions of law and fact were taken for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The fact of the matter however is being noticed from LPA 413/2002The respondent herein was employed in horticulture department as a Mali. He was transferred to Civil Lines Zone in October 1983. His services were terminated on November 10, 1984 without assigning any reason. According to the respondent on November 15, 1984 while he was going back to his house after performing his duties, he sustained injuries in a fight with another villager and remained confined to Hindu Rao Hospital. He was treated as out door patient for two months. A case under Section 307/324 IPC was registered against him. After his recovery he reported for duty but he was not allowed to do so. In the criminal case, however, he was acquitted.An industrial dispute in relation to the order of retrenchment was raised, inter alia, on the ground that the same w...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tyagi and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT310TriDel
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 49,357/- to Rs. 12,500/-. The appellant is represented by ld. JDR.There is no representation for the respondent, but there is a request from their Counsel for adjournment.2. After careful examination of the record, I find that the grounds raised by the appellants against the reduction of penalty are prima facie untenable. A final disposal of the appeal, at this stage, will not be prejudicial to the respondents.3. The original authority had disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 49,357/- to the party under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed a penalty of equal amount on them under that Rule. In the appeal preferred by the aggrieved party against the order of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the lower authority insofar as the demand of duty was concerned.However, in view of the fact that the entire amount of ...
Laser Recycling Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT332TriDel
1. These two appeals have been filed one by M/s. Laser Recycling and the other by Shri Harish B. Tekwani against imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a consignment of imported material landed at Kandla Port. No Bill of Entry was filed by any one. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the persons whose name appeared in the invoices and the Bill of Lading. They were asked to explain as to why the goods should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed.3. Shri K. Kumar, Id. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants had entered into an agreement for supply of scrap with M/s. EFP International Inc., New York. He submits that the present consignment was not ordered by the appellants. He submits that the appellants had nothing to do with the imported goods. Referring to some case law as also the definition of 'import' Ld. Counsel submits that the appellants were not owner of the goods. It was the shipper...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Jrew Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT444TriDel
1. In these appeals of the Revenue, there is a common issue. The issue is as to whether the deemed Modvat credit taken by the respondents on inputs supplied by various manufacturers working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act is admissible to them as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Ld. JDR submits that, after the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order, certain inquiries were made by the department and it was found that the Central Excise Range Officer having jurisdiction over the input-manufacturers had wrongly certified that appropriate central excise duty had been paid by those manufacturers on the inputs supplied by them to the respondents. The DR submits that, in view of this finding, the deemed credit will not be admissible to the respondents inasmuch as the mandatory condition under Notification No.58/97-C.E., dated 30-8-97 was not fulfilled by them. Ld. JDR relies on th...
Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Bachmann Industries India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT165TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the goods imported by the respondents were held to be classifiable under Heading No. 8503 of Customs Tariff as parts of valve actuators.3. The contention of the Revenue in this appeal is that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be sent for de novo adjudication on following grounds :- "The goods imported in this case were DDC module assemblies and UEC-3 module assemblies, the importer claimed the goods under CTH 8470.90 as parts of machines and mechanical appliances having individual function not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 84. On detailed examination of goods the assessing group classified the goods under heading 8485.90 machinery parts not included elsewhere in chapter 84. The party claimed the classification of the goods under Heading 8542.12 or 8503. The Heading 8542.12 is not there in the first schedule of the Customs Tariff Act. However, CTH 8542.10 ...
Centex Publication (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Delhi)265
1. All the three appeals have been directed by the assesses. The appeal for asst. yrs. 1991-92, arises out of the CIT(A)'s order dt. 11th Jan., 1995, for asst. yr. 1992-93, arise out of the order of the CIT(A), dt.28th April, 1994, and the appeal for asst. yr. 1994-95, arises out of the order of the CIT(A), dt. 6th July, 1996. As the issues are common in all the appeals, these are being disposed of by a consolidated order.2. First issue which is common to all the three years relates to the taxation of interest on short-term deposit as income from other sources rather than business income and thereby denying deduction under Section 80-I of the Act on such income.3. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of publishing of books and journals of Indian Customs and Central Excise Law and other related matters. It has earned certain income by way of interest.Claiming such income as business income, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-I of the Act on such income. Howeve...
Amarnath Charanji Lal and Company Vs. Dcm Daewoo Motors Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 102(2003)DLT637; [2003]42SCL167(Delhi)
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only) was filed by the petitioner on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the tender document dated 9.11.1995. Clause 104 of the said tender document contained an arbitration clause according to which in case of any dispute or difference between the parties touching or concerning the work or the executing or maintenance thereof under the contract or the rights touching or concerning the work or the execution thereof. or to the rights or liabilities disputes or differences between the parties arising out of the contract in question, the decision of the Engineer in charge shall be final and binding. According to the petitioner the respondent did not make payment under the contract and as such the petitioner issued a notice dated 2.11.2001 invoking the arbitration clause but vide is reply dated 21.11.2001 the respondent refused to appoint arbitrat...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »