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.
Hira Lal @ Vicky Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1009; 101(2002)DLT153
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.4.1999 wherein the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and the order of sentence dated 20.4.1999 whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo RI for four months.2. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the appellant concedes so far as conviction is concerned but has urged for extending the benefit of probation to the appellant by invoking provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Admittedly the appellant has remained in jail for almost two years. He was 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence. He is also a first convict. Admittedly he had neither wielded the weapon nor robbed off the victim. The concept of releasing a person who is 21 years of age on probation arises out of reforming youthful offenders who are first convicts and commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 7 years, such offenders have to be n...
Shri Mohan Chand Kholia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ710; 100(2002)DLT491
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi for framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498A and 306 IPC being prima facie of the view that from the statement of deceased Smt. Bhagwati Kholia made before her death, the appellant should be tried for the said offences.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Bhagwati Kholia was brought to the hospital with burn injuries on 20.8.2000. She gave her statement to the Police wherein she stated that she was married to the petitioner 12 years back. Her husband/ petitioner used to suspect her character and used to quarrel with her every day. On the day of incident at about 6 a.m. when she came down stairs with her children, the petitioner started abusing her. Her brother Ashok who also resides in the same area was called and after some time her brother Ashok went out of the house and the petitioner also went out. The petitioner came back af...
M.L. Sharma Vs. Adarsh P.V. Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT45; 2003(68)DRJ306
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Local Commissioner for making inventory of articles fixed/material used by the plaintiff along with articles/material lying at the site and for taking measurements of electrical work done at the defendant's plot No. 33, Section 6, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi.2. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant and have gone through the records.3. The facts relevant for disposal of the application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the defendant Society alleging that the plaintiff was awarded the work of external electrification at the aforesaid plot of the defendant Society. The plaintiff raised certain bills, payment of which was made by the defendant. However, the fourth bill dated 28.8.2001 was for a sum of Rs. 75,...
Lg Electronics India Ltd. Vs. Usha (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT310
B.N. Chaturvedi, J. 1. In a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,74,88,505/- filed by LG Electronics India Limited against M/s. Usha (India) Limited & Others, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has been made by the plaintiff seeking a decree for Rs. 4,65,02,400/- in view of alleged admissions on the part of M/s. Usha (India) Limited (defendant No. 1) and M/s. Usha Housing Development Company (defendant No. 2).2. Resume of facts relevant for disposal of application are that the plaintiff was granted lease by defendant No. 1 in respect of super structure, with chargeable super area of 24,220 sq.ft. (carpet area 20,184 sq.ft.) on the ground floor of a building constructed on lot No. A-41, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, mathura Road, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,26,600/- @ Rs. 30/- per sq. ft. w.e.f. 15.3.1997. A lease agreement dated 9.4.1997 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 setting out the terms and conditions of the said lease. The lease document was, ho...
itw Signode India Limited Vs. Bhushan Steel and Strips Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CompLJ269(Del); 2003(68)DRJ711
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This winding-up Petition under Section 433(1)(e) and (f) of the Companies Act has been filed with the complaint that the Petitioner had made supply of steel to the Respondent on various dates details of which are contained in para 6 of the Petition for the supplies ending on 22.6.2001. A sum of Rs. 40,89,948 is stated to be outstanding in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent (Company). It is not in dispute that for the supplies made from 12.10.2000 to 27.3.2001 'C' Forms have been duly supplied by the Company to the Petitioner. It will be relevant to note that these 'C' Forms were issued after 27.6.2001, the bulk of them being on 11.7.2001. The 'C' Forms that had not been issued are for the last five consignments covered by Invoices dated 5.4.2001, 21.5.2001, 31.5.2001, 8.6.2001 and 22.6.2001. It has been stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the 'C' Forms do not correspond exactly with the value of the Invoices, since the Company has carried out d...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Bhaskar Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT323TriDel
1. The respondents manufacture cotton yarn falling under Chapter 52.They supplied cotton yarn on 15-10-96 and 14-11-96 to 100% E.O.U. for export through merchant exporter on payment of additional duty of excise amounting to Rs. 7,117/- and Rs. 8,987/- respectively. They, however, filed a refund claim of Rs. 16,104/- in respect of the above duty on 9-7-97 on the ground that the additional excise duty was not liable on the goods cleared to the 100% E.O.U. They were however, issued a show cause notice dated 14-8-97 by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Bhopal in which it was alleged that the refund claim was not supported by the original documents and the same was also time-barred in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were therefore called upon to show cause why the refund claim should not be rejected. On considering the reply of the party, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise vide his Order dated 1-10-97 observed that they...
Sahil Trends Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC135
1. Applicants filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 13,77,95,487.00 and penalty of the same amount imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.3. The contention of the applicants is that they had already deposited a sum of Rs. 5,95,69,079.00. The contention of the applicants also is that the copies of certain documents, which were necessary for their defence, were not supplied to them by the adjudicating authority.Therefore, the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. The applicants also pleaded financial hardship on the ground that their company is closed.4. In this case, the applicants made in import of raw-material of a CIF value of Rs. 18,37,27,157.00 without payment of duty under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme Value based advance licence. The obligation on the applicants, went to export the goods manufactured out duty-free raw-material. It is an admitted fact that the applicants failed to export any goods made...
Bhiwani Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(151)ELT365TriDel
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order-in-original dated 29-1-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he had confirmed the recovery/reversal of the Modvat credit of Rs. 33,68,240/- under Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC read with Rule 173-Q, and demanded interest thereon on account of inadmissible Modvat credit availed by them, during the disputed period from June, 1999 to December, 1999.2. The learned counsel has not contested the validity of the impugned order to the extent of disallowing the Modvat credit of the disputed amount under Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, to the appellants. The appellants even had already debited that amount vide RG23-A, Part-II, entry No. 2331, dated 27-1-2000.3. The learned counsel has only questioned the legal propriety of the imposition of penalty equal to the Modvat credit amount, under Section 11AC and demand of interest ...
Gom Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC879
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing Modvat credits totalling to Rs. 2,40,000/- on inputs to the appellants under Rule 57-I and sustaining penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on them by the original authority under Rule 173Q. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the common order-in-original passed by the original authority in adjudication of two show cause notices, one dated 22-5-95 and the other dated 26-5-95.In the show cause notice dated 22-5-95, the proposal of the department was to deny Modvat credit of Rs. 1,66,000/- to the assessee on the ground that the dealers' invoices on the strength of which the credit was taken were not pre-authenticated and did not bear pre-printed serial numbers. In the show cause notice dated 26-5-95, it was proposed to disallow Modvat credit of Rs. 74,000/- on the same ground and on the further ground that the assessee had not produced evidence regarding intimation of serial number ...
Cce Vs. Punjab Concast
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC50
1. Revenue has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had held-- "Whereas, in the instant case the compressors falling under sub-heading 8414.80 were used for pneumatic operation in the arc furnace and the same cannot be treated as compressor used for refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances. In view of above discussions, I hold that the appellant had rightly taken Modvat credit on the compressors." "As the Modvat credit has been found admissible to the compressors used by the appellant, then the Modvat credit taken on its parts cannot be denied irrespective of the fact that sub-heading under which 'Air Receiver Tank' is classified is not covered under the schedule of items listed in Rule 57Q. This aspect has already been clarified by Ministry of Finance vide its Circular No. 276/110/96-TRU dated 2.12.96," 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents her...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »