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.
Mrs. Purnima Dhawan and anr. Vs. Agmoz Online Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ218
Sharda Aggarwal, J.1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC (IA.No. 8843/2001) for directions to the defendants to pay the rental arrears/damages/mesne profits and the defendants application under Section 151 CPC (IA.No. 3521/2002) for modification of order dated 20th March, 2002 passed in CCP No. 37/2002 and order dated 19th October, 2001 passed on the application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC. By this order, I also propose to dispose of the contempt petition (CCP 37/2002).2. In this suit for ejectment and recovery of rent, the plaintiffs have alleged that premises in question being the ground floor of the building D-302, defense Colony, New Delhi were let out to the defendant company on payment of Rs. 40,000/- as monthly rent (Rs. 25,000/- towards rent + Rs. 15,000/- towards watch and ward) w.e.f. 1st July 2000 by virtue of unregistered lease agreement dated 29th June, 2000 and watch and ward agreement of the same date. The relationship of th...
Madan Lamba and Smt. Sneh Lamba Vs. Jagdish Lamba and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR517(Delhi); 102(2002)DLT885; 2003(68)DRJ261
Usha Mehra, J.1. 'Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led then to Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without an exception challenged in Courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under the Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Informal forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Courts been clothed with 'legales' of unforeseeable complexity' so said the Supreme Court in the case of Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh & Sons : [1982]1SCR842 .2. Above observation of the Supreme Court aptly descr...
Budhdev Paul Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT273
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2000and 6.5.2000 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge convicting the appellantunder Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentencing him toundergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 302 IPC and indefault of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three years andfurther rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple rigorousimprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are that: 'on 11.11.1996 on receipt of DD No. 3A, regarding some dead body lying on the way going towards village Jharoda from Sangam Vihar, SI Ram Kumar along with Constable Ram Khilari reached at the spot and after sometime on the basis of the said DD No. 3A, Ins. K.s. B...
Mr. Kishore Motiani Vs. Om Prakash and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2003(66)DRJ376
S.K. Agarwal, J. This order will dispose of the application filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, for seeking review of Order dated 8.5.2001 passed in is No. 11166/2000.1. The plaintiff in the suit has prayed for grant of a decree for specific performance the Agreement to Sell dated 4.4.97, requiring the defendants to convey property bearing No. B-96, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi, along with entire built up area of the property.2. On 24.10.2000, plaintiff moved an application (IA No. 11166/2000) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. By order dated 30.10.2000 application was allowed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen, holding:'I am satisfied that the amendment sought are necessary for the complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties and, thereforee, be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to incorporate paragraphs 5 to 9 of the present application into t...
Ge Motors India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 99(2002)DLT677
ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 724/2000 and proceedings there under entitled GE Motors India Ltd. v. Unknown Persons, pending in the Court of Sh. S.S. Rathi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.2. On a complaint filed by petitioner No. 1, search warrant had been issued. On the basis of searches, investigation was done and charge-sheet had been filed. The learned M.M. had vide order dated 17.2.2001 taken cognizance under Section 63 of the Copyright Act besides Sections 77, 78, 79, Trade Marks Act and Sections 468, 471, 420, 485, 486, IPC. In terms of the compromise between petitioner Nos. 1,2 and 3, the disputes stand settled and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had given undertaking to petitioner No. 1. Petition is duly supported by the affidavits of the parties who are present and their statements have been recorded separately.3 In view of above, I am of the view, that no useful purpose would be served by permit...
Kishore Motiani Vs. Om Prakash and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT524
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This order will dispose of the application filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3, under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151, CPC, for seeking review of order dated 8.5.2001 passed in is No. 11166/2000.The plaintiff in the suit has prayed for grant of a decree for specific performance the agreement to sell dated 4.4.1997, requiring the defendants to convey property bearing No. B-96, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi, along with entire built up area of the property.2. On 24.10.2000, plaintiff moved a application (IA No. 11166/2000) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for amendment of the plaint. By order dated 30.10.2000 application was allowed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen, holding:'1 am satisfied that the amendments sought are necessary for the complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties and, thereforee, be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to incorporate paragraphs 5 to 9 of the present applica...
Cc (Acu) Vs. Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC73
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue is whether piston rings exported by M/s. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. are covered under the DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61. Serial No. 78 as "Pig Iron Products." 2. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned D.R. submitted that the Respondents filed two Manual DEPB-cum-EPCG Shipping Billsdated 31.8.99 wherein they sought to export the items mentioned as "Automotive Castings (Machined) - Piston Rings" under the DEPB Schedule Group Code No. 61 SI. No. 67; that subsequently the Respondents amended the description of the goods as "Pig Iron Products - Piston Rings"; that the Deputy Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order No. 3/99 dated 21.9.99, held that the Piston Rings cannot be classified under DEPB Schedule either under Group Code No. 61 SI. No. 67 as "Automotive Castings (Machined) or Group Code 61 SI. No. 78 as Pig Iron Products" holding that Automotive Castings (Machined) are the commodities which are in the form of castings only even...
Cce Vs. Kalsi Steel and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC41
1. Revenue filed this reference application for referring the following question of law to the Hon'ble High Court for their valuable opinion: "Whetherthe Hon'ble CEGAT is correct in extending thedeemed credit benefit under Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.94 to a unit availing of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 even after it crosses the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lacs and starts paying duty at the normal rate?" 2. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the respondents, in spite of notice.3. Respondents, M/s. Kalsi Steel and M/s. R.K. Plates & Rolling Mills are engaged in the manufacture of bars, angles and channels.Respondents were availing the benefit of small scale Notification No.1/93-CE dt. 28.2.93 and were also availing the benefit of deemed credit under Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94-TRU dated 1.3.94. Respondents, after crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 75,000 (sic), as provided under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93, ...
Shree Krishna Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)(85)ECC70
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Shree Krishna Rolling Mills Ltd. is whether modvat credit is available to them on the strength of the invoice issued by a dealer who did not have the duplicate copy of the invoice under which the inputs were received by him.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture iron and steel bars, angles etc.; that the Assistant Commissioner under the Adjudicating Order No. 78/96 dated 31.1.96 disallowed the modvat credit, on the ground that M/s. TISCO, Jaipur which had issued the dealers' Invoices to the Appellants, did not submit the duplicate copy of invoice to the proper officer; that on Appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had also rejected their Appeal as the duty paid nature of the goods could not be verified.3. Learned Advocate further submitted that in their own case, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/263-267/2001 NB (SM) dated 14.2.2001 has allowed the Appeal holding that if some irregularity had hap...
Jaypee Bela Plant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC889Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are manufacturers of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Cement is produced by grinding of clinker with gypsum, flyash or slag. This clinker is produced in Rotary kilns by burning finely ground Limestone Raw Mix at high temperatures up to 1450C. The severe temperature conditions in the kiln necessitate protection of the kiln shell against heat, which is achieved by lining the inner sides of the kiln with refractory fire bricks. This refractory lining has the further advantage of preventing excessive heat loss to the surroundings by virtue of its insulating characteristics. The fire bricks would lose their resistance over a period of 3 to 4 months of constant use whereafter they would require to be removed for fresh lining of the kiln-shell with new fire bricks. During the period March, 1995 to September, 1997, the appellants removed the used fire bricks as waste and scrap from their Rewa Plant without payment of dut...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »