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.
Kamal Chugh and ors. Vs. Narinder Kumar Gulati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(69)DRJ572
S. Mukerjee, J. 1. There are two separate aspects arising for consideration. The first is regarding the ex parte stay, while the second aspect is in relation to the continuance of the ad-interim stay order already granted, or whether any interim order at all is warranted and if so, to what extent and of what nature.VALIDITY OF THE EX PARTE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN favor OF THE PLAINTIFF 2. An interesting question has arisen as to whether in a suit, where thereis a Caveator upon whom copies are served but for some reason Caveator'scounsel, does not appear and ex-parte, ad-interim injunction is granted, thenwhether the compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is still to be carried out ornot.3. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant is that in this case neither process fee was filed nor dusty summons or dusty orders were got collected, and no affidavit at all has been filed, even though a one page letter of intimation about the stay order, had been received by the defendant.4. The c...
Smt. Anubha Vs. Shri Vikas Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 100(2002)DLT682; I(2003)DMC139
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Here is a case of an unfortunate hapless young bride who strayed in a dark tunnel without any hope to see the light at its end as she got entrapped in the marital knot on the temptation of a greener pastures as the groom was NR and might have painted a rosy picture about the lift in the United States. It is common knowledge that for those who are more conscious about the materia comforts than the mental happiness in life look for sojourns abroad particularly in countries like United States and grab the opportunity as it come to them. However such illusion is so short lived that the moment they land there it evaporates making their life miserable and the place a tiny hell. Such brides end up as emotional wreck carrying albatross of marriage around their neck during the golden period of their youth.2. Plaintiff, a young girl of 24-25 years is seeking decree of declaration that she is entitled to live separately from her husband, the defendant, and also for a decree for...
Smt. Pushpa Bajaj Vs. Shri. Jugal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 101(2002)DLT36; 2003(67)DRJ248
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. This civil revision petition is directed against a judgment dated 28th August 1993 passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Suit No. E-33/91 whereby and whereunder an eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity 'the Act' for short) for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises, was dismissed.2. That the fact of the matter as stated in the eviction petition is as under:-'(1) That the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the suit property-bearing No. AA-29, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-52, which consists of one bed-room Along with one drawing room at the ground floor, besides kitchen and bathroom, and similar accommodation is available at the first floor, as well as on the second floor of the suit property. Besides this, there is a Barsati at the top floor, so as to use it for special purposes of dumpi...
B.S. Naruka and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ618
ORDER OF SENIORITY. Provided that in case where the Board considers the performance, meritand record of service of an officer of outstanding merit, the board mayplace his name above his seniors. (6) A gradiation list of Sis (PI Comdrs.) approved for inclusion in list 'E'shall be maintained at the HQrs. of the BSF.' Border Security Force Act, however, was passed by the Parliament in1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short the 'BSFAct, 1968) provides : '141. Power to make rules : (1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for,- (a) the constitution, governance, command and discipline of the Force; (b) the enrolment of persons of the Force and the recruitment of other members of the Force ; (c) the conditions of service (including deductions from pay and allowances) of members...
Calcom Electronics Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC804
1. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under T.H, 85.29, 85.40 and 85.04. During the period July to Sept., 1995, they cleared certain inputs (useable for the manufacture of VHF tuners, one of their final products) on payment of duty by way of reversal of credit, to another company, M/s, Daishin Denken India Pvt. Ltd., who were also manufacturers of VHF tuners. Such clearance of the goods was under cover of invoices raised under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After about one year, the buyers returned the goods to the appellants under cover of the said invoices and the latter took re-credit of the duty on the returned inputs in their RG-23A Part-II in Sept, 1996, amounting to Rs. 87,985/-. The department, by show cause notice, proposed to disallow the credit, alleging that the party had contravened the provisons of Rule 57G read with Notification Nos. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), 26/96-C.E. (N.T.) and 28/95-C.E. (N.T.). The tenor of the show-caus...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rasik Polyflexil Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)(84)ECC858
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit of Rs. 78,033.89 to the respondents under Rule 57H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The respondents had filed declarations under Rules 57G and 57H in respect of their inputs on 10-2-2000. They had, however, taken Modvat credit of Rs. 78,034/- under Rule 57H, one day earlier i.e. on 9-2-2000. After having filed the Rule 57H declaration, they availed the credit for payment of duty on their final products. They also applied to the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner to condone the delay involved in the filing of the declaration. The department by show-cause notice proposed to disallow the credit on the ground that Rule 57H did not permit belated filing of 'declaration and did not provide for condonation of any delay. The assessee contested the proposal and raised two objections. One objection was that the show-cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise...
ici India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC834Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- The appellants are manufacturers of paints and allied products. The raw material requirements for the manufacture are met mainly by imports. Since October, 1999, the appellants imported certain raw materials and cleared the same duty-free by availing exemption under Notification No.34/97-Cus., dated 7-4-97 which provided for duty-free imports of raw materials against credit earned by any exporter and certified by the Director-General of Foreign Trade (in short, DGFT) under the Duty Exemption Pass Book (in short, DEPB) Scheme in terms of the relevant provisions of Exim Policy 1997-2002. Post-export DEPB certificates/scrips/licences issued by the DGFT to an exporter were transferable in the market and a transferee-importer was entitled, under the above Notification, to utilise the certified credit for paying basic customs duty and surcharge on imports of non-restricted items of raw materials. The imports made by the appellants without pay...
Arvind Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT147TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Arvind Chemicals Ltd., Bagru, Jaipur manufacture 'Mattresses' falling under Heading No. 94.04. They are issued a show cause notice dated 30-4-2001 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I in which it is alleged that during the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 (upto 2-12-2000), they wrongly availed the value based exemption (SSI exemption) under Notfn. Nos. 8/99-C.E. dated 28-2-99 and 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 49, 52A, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is alleged that they had filed the classification declarations declaring as, "We are not using any brand name of any other party/firm". However, on visit to their factory premises by the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing of the Commissionerate on 4-12-2000, it was found that the mattresses manufactured by them were bearing the same logo and symbols as used by other companies of 'Arvind group' namely, M/s. Arvind International Ltd., Bagru & M/...
Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC108
1. The above captioned appeals have been directed against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 28-9-2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 5-3-2001 who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed therein, for the period November, 1999 to March, 2000 on the appellants.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various items viz.potato chips, masala balls, cheetos wheels and lehar kurkure. The dispute relates to classification of the items namely cheetos wheels and lehar kurkure. The appellants filed declaration wherein they declared these items classifiable under Heading 2108 of the CETA as namkeen and claimed exemption under Notification 5/99 from payment of duty. But the Revenue did not accept that classification and issued show cause notice to the appellants alleging that these items were classifiable under sub-heading 1904.10 of the CETA attracting duty @ 16% ad valore...
Associated Builders, Engineers and Contractors Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: [2003]42SCL137(Delhi)
K.S. Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner filed petition being suit No. 364/94 under Sections 14 & 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the 'Act') seeking direction to respondents 1 & 2 to file the award and proceedings in Court and by the order dated 26th April, 1994, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No.2 for 29th July, 1994. In the meantime, on arbitrator's filing the award and proceedings registered as Suit No. 1380/94, notice was ordered to be issued to both the parties to file objections, if any, within statutory period, returnable on 7th September, 1994. is No. 7834/94 is the objections filed on 26th August, 1994 under Sections 16, 30 & 33 of the Act by respondent No.1/UOI which is being contested by filing reply by the petitioner.2. In said objection petition, although respondent No.1 had taken diverse grounds for setting aside the award dated 27th January, 1994 but during the course of argument, Sh. Sanjay Jain appearing for the said respondent had only pressed the ground...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »