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.
Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Sanjay Kumar Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT482
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this suit the plaintiff has prayed for declaratory decree against the defendant in terms of Oral Settlement dated 9th March, 1999 which was reduced in writing by way of 'MEMORANDUM' of Family Settlement on 10th April, 1999. The prayer clause describes respective shares in properties as under:-A. PROPERTY IN THE SHARE OF THE PLAINTIFF, SHRI VIJAY KUMAR JAIN :- i) Half of the portion of the Ground Floor of the property No. C-5/34, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi, Along with Garage together with proportionate, undivided and undemaracted interest in the leasehold plot of land under such portion as shown green in site plan annexed hereto as 'A-2'.ii) Property at Delhi Agra High Way, 92 Milestone, Village Karman, Hodal Barrier, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana (which was in the name of Shri Sanjay Jain, Defendant) annexed hereto in the plan marked 'A-3'. B. PROPERTY IN THE SHARE OF THE DEFENDANT, SHRI SANJAY JAIN :- i) Half of the portion of the Ground Floor of the pro...
Durga Prasad (05/Rb) (Constable) Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ663
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Interpretation of the expressions 'previous record' and ' previous bad record ' occurring in Rules 10 and 16(xii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Rule'), arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence and vide order dated 29.01.1999, the disciplinary authority directed his dismissal from service. By an order dated 02.07.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order dated 29.01.1999 was dismissed.3. It has been stated that prior thereto two absentee notices dated 04.11.1997 and 31.12.1997 had been issued at his permanent residential address with the directions to the petitioner to resume his duties at once, failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him. However, he did not comply with the said directions. He ...
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Spectrum Power Generation ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT656
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff, under Order 23 Rule 1(3)(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC'). 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this application in brief are: that on 23.7.1992, plaintiff entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with defendant No.3 (STUSA), for setting up a 208 M.W. Gas based power project, and in pursuant thereto a company by the name of Spectrum Power Generation Ltd. (SPGL)--defendant No.1 was incorporated; that on 29.6.1993 a Promoters Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff (NTPC), the defendant No.2- Jaya Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'JFIL') and defendant No.3 (STUSA). The disputes arose between NTPC, SPGL and JFIL and their directors, as a result of which plaintiff (NTPC) filed the above noted suit, seeking a decree for specific performance of the promoters Agreement and for other mandatory injunctions and declarations for enforcing their rig...
V.K. JaIn Vs. Jay Engg. Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR525(Delhi); 100(2002)DLT592; [2003]42SCL135(Delhi)
S. Mukerjee, J.1. The short point which arises for consideration in this case is whether the respondent could unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator after a delay of about one year beyond the date of petitioner suggesting the name of an arbitrator who was a retired judge of this Court.2. In this case, FICCI had called upon the petitioner to forward the name of a sole arbitrator, and the petitioner in response thereto, on 21.6.2001, had named Mr. Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd. Judge) from amongst the name sin FICCI's approved panel of arbitrators.3. As such on the expiry of 30 days from 21.6.2001, Shri Justice M.K. Chawla (Retd.) became the agreed name. Alternatively, and in any case, thereafter it was only the Court which could appoint an arbitrator and not FICCI.4. The consent of the petitioner was also not obtained in relation to the other persons (Shri J.P. Gupta), who was instead appointed as a sole arbitrator.5. Reliance was initially placed by the Ld Counsel for the respondents upon ...
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Magi Cook Appliances Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT698
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. The present suit is for the issuance of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from using a get up of label in relation to pressure cookers which is deceptively similar to the label of the plaintiff having distinctive features and registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 vide registration No. A-27389/80.2. Perpetual injunction has also been claimed restraining the defendants from the dealing in any manner with their cook book having passages reproduced verbatim from the cook book of the plaintiff titled as 'Pressure Cookery and Instructions Book', thereby infringing the Copyright of the cook book of the plaintiff.3. Further relief is also sought for delivering up and destruction of all such pressure cookers, accessories and articles as are being employed by the defendant in the manufacture of their offending goods which are in the custody, power and possession of the defendants.4. The plaintiff has also prayed f...
Balbir Singh and ors., Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ799
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners are said to be tenure holders / owners / bhumidhars of agricultural holdings situated in Village Kanjhawala. The said village is in rural area of Delhi established under Section 150 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the Reforms Act'). It is not in dispute that a notification under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Frangmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, 'the said Act') was issued on 08.09.1993 for commencement of proceedings with the object of consolidation of holdings in the said village allegedly for better cultivation of land therein.According to the petitioners, the consolidation of holdings in the said village had taken place in the year 1952-53. The petitio...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Padmini Polymers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT358TriDel
1. These are two appeals one is filed by Revenue against the impugned order dropping the proceedings initiated against M/s. Padmini Polymers Ltd. and holding that an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs deposited on 22-10-97 cannot be appropriated towards the duty demanded in the SCN and also dropping proceedings against Shri Vivek Nagpal and Shri R.K. Chawla.The assessec has filed cross appeal against confiscated raw material and its redemption on payment of Rs. 30,000/- as fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the two appeals arise out of the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that M/s. Padmini Polymers are engaged in the manufacture of articles of plastics falling under Chapter sub-heading 3923.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was alleged that they were wrongly availing the benefit of duty free clearances of the goods in terms of Notification No. 4/97,...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gajra Gears Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT367TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by the Revenue, is regarding liability to Central Excise duty in respect of tools, cutters and hobs manufactured by M/s. Gajra Gears Ltd. and sent outside for tin coating under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the material time.2. Mrs. Nita Lal Butalia, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents manufacture motor vehicle parts and tools and avail the facility of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules; that the inputs for manufacture of tools is alloy steel bars; that the appellants had sent the tools for tin coating outside their factory premises without payment of duty under Rule 57F which is not applicable since the goods had already lost their identity as inputs or partially processed inputs; that further the tools were not in the nature of intermediate goods as they had already attained the essential characteristics as tools; that after return from the job workers the re...
Carrier Aircon Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT710TriDel
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. Carrier Aircon Ltd., the issue involved is whether Central Air Conditioning Plants erected by them in the premises of their customers are exigible to Central Excise duty.2. Shri R. Krishnan, learned advocate, submitted that the Appellants erected and commissioned the huge Air conditioner system; that during the relevant period 1998-99 to 2000-2001, they entered into contracts with various customers for design, supply, erection, etc., and commissioning of chiller base Air conditioning system. The Commissioner under the impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed the penalty holding that the Central Air Conditioning Plant is tailor made according to the specifications of the premises in which it is to be installed and it is capable of being transported, dismantled and sold. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that Central Air Conditioning Plant is used in large buildings, hospitals, hotels and commercial centers; that they have chille...
S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT215TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. S.N. Sunderson (Minerals) Ltd. the issue involved is whether the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is invokable in the present matter.2. Shri R. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the appellants are engaged in the process of excavating limestones from the mines which is then crushed into different sizes before being sold to Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL; that in the present matter show cause notice dated 27-8-96 was issued to them for demanding central excise duty for the period from September, 1991 to June, 1992; that the Commissioner under the impugned order has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty invoking extended period of limitation holding that the appellants have wilfully and deliberately not maintained any statutory record regarding production and clearances of crushed limestone and had not submitted the returns as prescribed under the law. The learned Consultant, further, submitted that after exchange of correspond...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »