Delhi Court October 2003 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.
Gwalior Hospital and Educational Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT534TriDel
1. The appellants imported medical equipment vide Bill of Entry No.109356, dated 28-8-99. The medical equipments were old and valued at Rs. 5,92,500/-. The import in question was held to be unauthorised because the importer was required to produce appropriate import licence and required a valid Importer-Exporter Certificate. The original authority viz. the Joint Commissioner ordered confiscation of the equipment and imposed redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their appeal. Hence the appeal before the Tribunal.3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the medical equipment in question conform to the "capital goods" as defined in Para 3.10 of the EXIM Policy 1997-2002. It was also pleaded that import of second-hand capital goods which are not more than 10 years old are freely permissible in terms of Para 5.4 of the said Policy. It is pleaded that the Department h...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Sada Shiv Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT362TriDel
1. In these two appeals the Revenue is praying for imposition of penalty on both the Respondents namely, M/s. Sada Shiv Castings Ltd. & M/s. Chandigarh Ispat Ltd. under Rule 96ZO/ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that both the Respondents were liable to pay duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that the Central Excise duty as determined was not paid by both the Respondents; that the Dy. Commissioner under Order-m-Original No.183-187/2002, dated 21-8-2002 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on M/s. Sada Shiv Castings Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s.Chandigarh Ispat Ltd.; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned Order has set aside the penalties observing that the delay in depositing the duty was due to confusion at the prevailing time as well as due to the litigation regarding the validity of compounded levy claim challenged in various High Courts. The learned SDR submitted that the mens rea is not p...
Shakti Weldmesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC248
1. Office note indicates that the copy of the Central Interest Scheme (Revised) for November 1984 Riot Victims has been filed by the appellant. The same is taken on record.2. This appeal is against the impugned order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on an application filed by the appellant requesting that (a) the proceedings in the O.A. be stayed, (b) directions be issued to the Bank to grant relief to the defendants in accordance with the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme for November 1984 Riot Affected Borrowers (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') and to charge interest @ 1% per annum, and (c) for other reliefs. To this application, the respondent-Bank filed a reply stating, among other things, that the Scheme itself was promulgated in the year 1993 and, therefore, there is no question of grant of any credit as on 31.3.92, and that a sum of Rs. 9,34,582/- was credited to the Cash Credit Account ...
Shri N.K. Ahuja Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)660; AIR2004Delhi91; 107(2003)DLT295; 2004(72)DRJ238
B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. This petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents, taking possession of land which vest in Government in view of the award made by Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 1925, copy of which is placed on record (Annexure-C) dated 12.1.1967.2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 13.11.1959 to acquire 34070 acres of land situate in various villages of Union Territory of Delhi including village Tihar. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10.12.1961 and subsequently award came to be made on 2.1.1967. There is no dispute that the proceedings were challenged by filing writ petition and subsequently by filing Letters Patent Appeal and Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court by the land owners but without success. thereforee, the question of the acquisition is not required to be gone into by this Court.3. Lea...
Jag Mahinder Vs. Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)264; AIR2004Delhi150; 107(2003)DLT337; 2003(71)DRJ105
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. R.S.A. 35 of 1979 is an appeal against the judgment dated 3.2.1979 of the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1978 which was directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1975 of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 432 of 1970. The learned Sub-Judge decreed the plaintiff-respondent No.1, Chander's, suit with costs and gave Jag Mahinder four months to vacate the property and hand over possession to Chander and on his failure to do so within that period, the decree against Jag Mahinder was executable. The learned Sub-Judge decided the Suit Nos. 432/1970 by Chander and No. 416/1969 by Ram Kishan by a single judgment and Chander was made a party-defendant to the suit by Ram Kishan and Ram Kishan and Sheo Ram were made parties to the suit filed by Chander.2. The First Appellate Court by its judgment dated 3.2.1979 dismissed the appeal of Jag Mahinder. The contest in the suit relates to land in Azadpur, Delhi. In the suit by Ram K...
Ranjit Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)621; AIR2004Delhi64; III(2003)BC635; 2004(1)CTLJ51(Del); 107(2003)DLT249
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The petitioner by filing this petition has prayed as under:-'(i) setting aside the decision of the respondent No. 1 NHAI rejecting/concluding that the tender submitted by the petitioner as non responsible (Sic responsive) for 'construction of Additional three Lane Bridge with its approaches (with footpaths on the left side only' and 'improvement of the existing bridge proper and its approaches across River Tapi in Km.246/408 on NH-8 in Ahmedabad - Mumbai Section in Surat District'.(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 not to consider the bid submitted by the respondent No. 2 in view of the various violations committed by respondent No. 2 of the conditions of the Bidding document (Vol.I), including influencing the Employer's processing of bids and the final decision.(iii) Directing the respondent No. 1 to disqualify respondent No. 2.(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner, and ...
Jama Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)132; 107(2003)DLT684
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner aggrieved by the letter dated 23.6.2003 whereby it has been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest that the petitioner's request of import of Caiman Crocodilus Fususskin from USA cannot be granted. The petitioner intended to import tanned skin of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus from the USA. This species of crocodile is found in South America. It is not found in India. The petitioner obtained a permit from the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which is valid up to 17.10.2003. This permit is necessary for the export/re-export of, inter alia, tanned skin of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus from USA.3. The petitioner submits that under the export and import policy for 2002-2007, the import of tanned skin of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus does not require any license and is free from any condition with regard to obtaining a...
VokhyamamIn Alexander Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)133; 108(2003)DLT702
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Appellant Vokhyamamin Alexander is a Russian citizen. He stands convicted by the impugned judgment dated 31.7.1999 for having committed the offence under Section 302, IPC. 2. In sustaining the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the following chain of circumstances stood established against the appellant and the same were sufficient to come to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant of committing murder of K. Allexander on the mid-night of 15/16.9.1996 at Room No. 102, Hotel Kumar Palace stood proved beyond reasonable doubt: (a) The accused and the deceased were staying in Room No. 102, Hotel Kumar Palace since 14.9.1996. (b) They were seen staying in the same room on the intervening night of 15/16.9.1996. (c) On 16.9.1996 at about 2 p.m. K. Allexander was found dead in the hotel room. (d) Appellant was seen at the hotel on 17.9.1996 and was arrested. (e) Pursuant to his disclosure and at his pointing out, US $ 1500 were recove...
India Iron Stores and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT949
A.K. Sikri, J.1. Common issues are raised in these appeals. In fact, these appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by these three appellants and the learned Single Judge has also disposed of the writ petitions by common order dated November 25,2002 which is impugned in these appeals. These appeals were heard together and that is the reason we are disposing of all these three appeals by this common order.2. The issue involved is in a narrow compass. All the appellants were unauthorized occupants of public land in Basant Nagar. From there the appellants were carrying on business of iron and steel. They were removed from these sites during the period 1975 to 1977, when an operation was carried out by the DDA in various parts of Delhi for shifting of non-conforming trade and industry. With the intention that the business interests of the appellants do not suffer even when they were encroachers on public land in Basant Nagar, the respondent-DDA agreed to allot plots of 84 sq. metres...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›