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.
Sanjay JaIn and anr. Vs. Mcd and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT223
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. By this suit, plaintiffs have prayed for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-MCD, restraining them its officers, servants, agents, representatives, employees from taking any action of demolition and/or sealing of any nature whatsoever in regard to the property No. D-2, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property') and from disturbing and interfering in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property. It is inter alias pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone of MCD, served a show cause notice under Section 345-A read with Section 347/343/344(h) of the DMC Act, for unauthorized construction/misuse of the suit property, stating that it is being commercially used, in the name and style of 'BIG JOB' at basement, ground floor, first floor and IInd Floor against the sanctioned use and building bye laws after making unauthorised construction. The defendants MCD filed written statement pleading that defendants accepte...
Naptha Resins and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Flow-tech Air (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]45SCL496(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts that have emerged after hearing the learned counsel for the parties is that supplies were made by the Petitioner to the Respondent-company between November, 1995 and July, 1997, aggregating Rs. 68,56,071.00. Partial payments against these supplied were made from time to time. A photocopy of the Ledger is available on the pages 43 and 44 of the Court file showing the balance due from the Respondent to the Petitioner to be Rs. 41,47,187.00. This Ledger has been specifically mentioned since it is the contention raised on behalf of the Respondent that the interest component has not been reflected in the Ledger. This is not disputed. This was pointed out in order to buttress the argument that the claim of interest at the rate 25% per annum was unilaterally raised. There is also a photocopy of the Ledger for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.12.2000 in which the balance due is show as Rs. 35,21,428.00. It has been explained by learned counsel for the petitioner that th...
Shri Mahesh Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]41SCL257(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, assailing the order dated 20.8.2001, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, disposing of the petitioner's application for dispensation of pre deposit of penalty under Section 52(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA).3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case for waiver of penalty has urged that petitioner has been acquitted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. Secondly, he submits that petitioner had given a detailed reply to the show cause notice and also made submissions before the Appellate Tribunal, which have not been considered. He submits that one Mr. Jagdishbhai Maganlal Patel, on whose statement, petitioner was implicated, was not an employee but a friend. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is having cash liquidity problems and it is a case of financial hardshi...
Sh. Jagbhushan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ378
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The controversy which arises in the present writpetition is the category in which the petitioner wouldfall under the Gadgli Assurance Scheme which wasin actedby the Parliament to rehab Tatethe displacedpersons/migrants from Pakistan after partition.2. In terms of the revolution dated 16.10.1970three categories were formulated which are as under : '1. Category 'A'- Persons who have theircontinuously residentialoccupation prior to 15th August,1950.2. Category 'B'-- Persons who have theirresidential occupation after 15th August, 1950 but before30th September 1960.3. Category 'C'-- Persons after squatting 1960to 1980 will be covered under slum and JJ scheme.' 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he falls in 'A' category though the respondent had made an allotment under 'B' category. 4. Learned council for the respondent No. 2 submitted that there was a requirement of certain essential documents for eligibility in category 'A' which are as under : Essential ...
Dr. M.L. Arora Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT152
ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned notices dated 22.8.1979 as also the earlier notice dated 29.6.1976 issued by the respondent DDA taking action under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the DDA Act on account of violation of the provisions of the master plan by the petitioner since the petitioner was using the premises for running a nursing home. The premises are stated to be meant for residential use. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter in controversy stand settled in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DMA Nursing Home & Medical E.F. v. Union of India : AIR2001Delhi471 , and it is open to the petitioner to run the nursing home. This position is not disputed by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 -- DDA though the Counsel contends that in terms of para 23 of the said judgment, it has been held that under Section 57-1(f) of the Act, DDA is competent to make regulations with the prior app...
Cit Vs. Moti Electric Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN590(Delhi)
ORDERThe matter has been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books. Since, in our view, answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the matter at this stage itself.2. No one appears for the respondent-assessed. We have heard Mr. J.R. Goel, learned counsel for the revenue.3. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the directors of the assessed company are governed only by the provisions of section 40(c) and not section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for taxing the excess perquisites in the hands of the assessed company?'4. The issue whether in the case of the employee directors, section 40A(5) or section 40(c) of the Income...
Sunbeam Castings Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC77
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.2. Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cylinder heads and cylinder blocks of motor vehicles. Appellants are claiming classification of the goods, in question, under heading 8409.00 of Central Excise Tariff. Show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 18.2.2000 for the period 1.3.97 to 28.2.99 demanding duty on the ground that the goods, in question, are classifiable under heading 7616.90 of Central Excise Tariff. It was also alleged that the appellants intentionally mis-declared the goods to evade payment of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the classification of the goods, in question, as proposed in the show cause notice and confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.3. The contention of the appellants is that the whole of demand is time-barred and no suppression can be alleged against the appellants.Their contention is also that earlier to the presen...
Tata Libert Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(86)ECC360
1. The dispute raised in this appeal is about the valuation of PCS assemblies manufactured and cleared by the assessee to their depots.The period of dispute is June 1996 to January 2000. The original valuation of these PCBs was carried out under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules i.e. based on the cost of production of the goods. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 12.4.2000 was issued alleging that comparable goods produced by the assessee were being sold on ex-factory basis and valuation of the PCBs removed to the depots were required to be carried out based on the value of such comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the said Valuation Rules. The notice held that revision of the assessment based on the comparable value indicated a short levy of Central Excise duty amounting more than Rs. 63 lakhs. The show cause notice, accordingly, proposed recovery of the duty short levied as well as imposition of penalty on the appellant.The notice also alleged that as the sh...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT644TriDel
1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 is available to the Brass Circles manufactured by M/s. Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog.2. Shri A.S. Bedi, learned SDK, submitted that Sri. No. 200 of Notification No. 3/2001 exempts all the goods falling under Heading 74.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act other than trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of copper intended to be used for in the manufacture of utensils or handicrafts subject to the condition that such goods are not produced or manufactured by a manufacturer who produces or manufacture copper from copper ore or copper concentrate; that the Asstt. Commissioner denied the benefit of Sri. No. 200 of Notification No. 3/2000 as heading 74.09 applies to copper plates, sheets (including circles) and strips of the thickness 0.15 mm. whether made of copper or copper alloys and Sri. No. 200 excludes trimmed or untrimmed sheets or circles of...
Gagan Freight Carriers Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC92
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise who had imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on them under Rule 209A of the Rules.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants No. 1 and 3 constitute one transport company. They have got one at Surat and the other at Amritsar. Similarly, appellants No. 3 & 4 are also one company, having one office at Surat and the other at Amritsar. They all are engaged in the transportation of the goods from Surat to Amritsar and vice versa. The appellants No. 1 and 2 transported fabrics from Surat to Amritsar under the cover of GRs. The delivery of the goods was to be taken by the consignees at the Amritsar offices of both these companies. Acting on a prior information that the consignments of processed man made fabrics had been cleared by the manufacturers at Surat without payment of duty for Amritsar, the Officers of Central Excise conducted raid on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »