Delhi Court January 2003 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2003 Page 7 of about 205 results (0.021 seconds)Ravinder Khurana Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gen.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT360TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 23-7-2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the impugned goods under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act with an option to get the same redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/- and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 112(b) of the Act.2. The facts are not much in dispute. On 24-9-1999, raid was conducted at the business premises of Hans Studio at Safdarjung Enclave. On conducting search, Misc. electronic goods of foreign origin, detailed in the Panchnama, vide which those goods were seized, were recovered, as the appellant could not produce any document showing the lawful acquisition of the same. Show cause notice for the confiscation of the goods and for imposition of the penalty was issued to the appellants.The appellant, however, contested the show cause noti...
Tag this Judgment!Dynatech Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1159TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order-in-appeal dated 26-2-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original disallowing the Modvat credit of Rs. 88,551/-to the appellants for month of June, 1998.2. The Modvat credit had been availed by the appellants during the month of June, 1998 on endorsed bill of entry. Therefore, the only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether on such a bill of entry, the Modvat credit could be taken or not. This issue stands already covered by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur -2001 (137) E.L.T. 761 (T), wherein it has been observed that no Modvat credit is available on the endorsed bill of entry. The credit could be available on such a bill of entry only when an endorsement has been made by Head Office in favour of its sub-office or unit. In the instant case, the bill of entry was in the name of M/s.Shin Ho Petrochemicals Ltd., who made the endo...
Tag this Judgment!VipIn Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT1174TriDel
1. Both appeals are filed against the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Vide impugned order the personal penalties were imposed on the appellants.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9-7-2000 a truck was intercepted by the Revenue Officer and it was found to be loaded of ginger of Chinese origin and there was no documents for their legal import to India. Certain Bills were recovered re-covered from the truck which shows that the goods were for the present appellant. The goods were declared as ginger of Nepal origin whereas after taking expert opinion the Revenue concluded that the gingers were of Chinese origin.3. The contention of the appellant is that the ginger in question is the Nepalese origin and necessary certificate regarding origin of the ginger is also produced by them.4. In view of the contention that the ginger is of Nepalese origin, the appellants had not made any attempt to Cross-examine the traders/experts which gave the opinion regarding it...
Tag this Judgment!Rohit Packaging Industries and Vs. Dena Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: III(2003)BC62
1. Appellants herein are defendants in O.A. 86/ 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-II (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). On 2.1.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order against the defendants/appellants. The appellants filed an application to set aside that final order on the ground that they did not receive the show cause notice in respect of the O.A. that on receipt of the final order, they found that the show cause notices sent to them had been received back with the report as "refused", whereas they did not receive or refuse the show cause notices. But the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT held that refusal is deemed to be valid service in law, that there was no reason to disbelieve the report made on the envelope, and that there was no merit in the application. He, therefore, dismissed the application in limine by his order dated 30.1.2002.2. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The respondent/plaintiff Bank has fi...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Usha Anand Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Reported in: I(2004)BC149
1. Respondent-Canara Bank filed O.A. 518/95 against (1) Kapri International Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mohan Anand, (3) Mrs. Usha Anand (appellant herein), and (4) C.L. Anand (since deceased) for the recovery of Rs. 33,04,41,348.77 with subsequent interest and costs. The abovesaid O.A. is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT').2. On 12.11.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed, among other orders, the order that "None is appearing on behalf of Mr.Rahul Mehra and Mr. Sunil Magan, Counsels for the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. None is appearing on behalf of defendants 1, 2 and 3 today, hence, proceeded ex parte". Learned Presiding Officer also passed the following order: "Ms. Geeta Vadehra submits that she had moved an LA. today vide Diary No. 3031/ 2002 in the Registry. She does not want to press this application and wants to move another application for bringing LRs of defendant No. 4 (Sh. C.L. Anand deceased). Application being LA. N...
Tag this Judgment!Kanjimull and Sons Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)8; 102(2003)DLT852
Vikramajit Sen, J.is No.6440/00 1. On the first hearing of the Suit in terms of the Orders dated 22nd December, 1999, Ansal Properties and Industries Limited, its employees, agents, servants is stated to have been engineered and conceived of in order to defeat the Plaintiff's claims in the Suit, which already stood protected by the Interim Orders passed by this Court on the first hearing of the Suit. Thirdly, it is contended that the Defendants had given over possession of the disputed area as shown in the site plan delineated 'CDEF' (hereinafter referred to as the Kiosk) to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation for setting-up their ATM machine, after the passing of these Interim Orders. The representatives of the Bank had appeared before the Court and given an undertaking that they would vacate the Kiosk on or before 31st December, 2000 and hence the Application for Contempt was not pressed against these Respondents. This undertaking has been complied with. Prima facie, I am s...
Tag this Judgment!Orissa Industries Ltd. Vs. Hardayal and Sons (Huf) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ471
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties grievance of the petitioner is that his application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, despite the bar under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was rejected by the learned trial court.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be absolutely justified In her submissions about legal proposition in terms of Section 19 that the suit cannot be instituted for eviction of a tenant unless permission is obtained under Section 19 in case the premises are located in a slum area.3. However, in this case learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that supposing the premises are located in slum area, the defendant has ceased to be tenant and as such, bar under Section 19 is not applicable to Institute a suit for eviction and an unauthorised occupant who has ceased to be tenant by serving notice of termination of his tenancy. He relies upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court del...
Tag this Judgment!Wockhardt Limited Vs. Patiala Medical Agencies and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC425(Del)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Plaintiff M/s Wockhardt Limited has filed the present suit seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing its registered trademark ANAL-GON bearing No. 460943 in class-5. The plaintiff also applied for registration of a distinctive label of 'ANALGON' bearing No. 465665 in respect of medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations. The said application was duly advertised in trade mark journal and so was the registration advertised in the journal. The plaintiffs petition for renewal of the trademark is pending.2. The plaintiff seeks injunction to retrain infringement of the copyright in the artistic green coloured cartons and blister pack. The plaintiff claims that the defendant by using carton pack deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs trademark has adopted a trademark PALGON Along with deceptively similar cartons and blister packs are infringing the plaintiffs trademark and passing-off the goods as that of the plaintiffs.3....
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Ruchi Goyal @ Kiran Goyal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT347; 2003(69)DRJ479; 2003(2)JCC628
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of petitioner's application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in Case FIR No. 448/2001 registered at PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi under Sections 408/409/ 419/420/467/471 /477-A read with Section 120-B of the IPC. It may be mentioned here itself that the petitioner had earlier also moved an application for anticipatory bail which was declined by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan vide orders dated 14.11.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that this application has been moved as the petitioner has found some more material to persuade the Court to order her enlargement on bail before her arrest.2. The petitioner was working with United States Educational Foundation in India (USEFI) which came into existence through a treaty between India and United States of America for academic exchanges between the two countries. The Body is governed by a Board of Directors on which five Indians hav...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. Delhi Agricultural Marketing B
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT487
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate direction to the respondent Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board for allotment of a shop meant for commission agents. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entitled for allotment of a shop by virtue of his working since 1978 in Subji Mandi, Darya Ganj as commission agent. It is a matter of common knowledge that the aforesaid Mandi at Darya Ganj was denotified in 1978 and the commission agents who were operating there from were provided alternate accommodation at Okhla Mandi as per the scheme formulated by the respondent on the recommendations of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Azadpur.2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, it is categorically admitted that petitioner's registration as commission agent is the earliest. In view of this categorical statement, learned Counsel for respondent states that respondent h...
Tag this Judgment!