Delhi Court November 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.
Modern Syntex (i) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC238
1. The appellants had filed two refund claims, one for the duty of Rs. 1,44,68,797.43 for the period 22.7.86 to 13.7.90 and the other for the duty of Rs. 9,79,102.54 for the period 1.7.90 to 21.11.90. These claims were rejected by the original authority by order dated 30.3.2001 on the ground that the claimant could not prove that they had not passed on the burden of the above duty to their customers. An appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order was filed with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 14.11.2002 and the same was dismissed as time-barred.Hence, the present appeal of the party.2. We have heard both the sides. The Counsel for the appellants gave an account of the facts pertaining to the delay involved in the filing of appeal with the lower appellate authority. The appellants' factory was lying closed since 1996 due to labour trouble. On account of the lock-out, the Assistant Commissioner's order returned undelivered.Though the order was subsequently (on 9.4.2001} served on Sh...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Oswal Overseas Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT415TriDel
1. This is an application by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.2. Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Revenue has preferred the Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 764- 855/C.E./CHD/2000, dated 19-4-2000 after a delay of 1068 days; that the impugned order has been received on 1-5-2000 whereas the Appeal has been filed on 4-7-2003; that initially the impugned Order was reviewed by the Commissioner and the decision was taken to accept the impugned Order on 21-7-2000 inadvertently under the impression that the period involved in all the cases was after 16-3-1995; that when Vigilance proceedings were started regarding adjudication of show cause notice dated 31-1-1997 which was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, instead of Commissioner, it was observed that the Order has been wrongly accepted; that in view of these facts, the delay has occurred unintentionally which may be condoned; that the Revenue has also filed an Affidavit by ...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kothari Products Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT420TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order vide which the Commissioner had not ordered the payment of interest by the respondents on short paid/non-paid duty amount. The counsel for the respondents, has at the outset, stated that the Tribunal had confirmed the duty demand against the respondents vide Final Order No.180/2003-B, dated 12-3-2003 [2003 (160) E.L.T. 699 (Tribunal)]. He has even produced the copy of the order passed by the 'B' Bench of this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel has, however contended that interest has been rightly not demanded by the Commissioner as there was no suppression of facts by the respondents and the show cause notice was issued within a period of one year but we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the counsel for the reason that the provision of Section 11AB had been amended w.e.f. 11-5-2001 and under the amended provisions, it is not essential to prove suppression of facts or collusion, fraud on the part of the assessee...
Sidharth Vashisth @ Manu Sharma Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)176; 2004CriLJ684; 108(2003)DLT134; 2004(72)DRJ124; 2003(3)JCC1846
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Though through instant Crl.M(M) petition extension for interim bail was sought but through Crl.M.558/03 moved in this main petition prayer for regular bail has been made. 2. Petitioner is facing a trial in a murder case arising out of FIR No. 287/1999 registered under Sections 302/201/212/120B/34 IPC at P.S.Mehrauli for having allegedly fired in the late midnight hours a shot aiming at a young lady Jessica Lal, a Model, who was acting as a Bar-tender in a weekly party being held at a place known as Qutub Colonnade at Mehrauli where Ms. Beena Ramani and her Model daughter Malini Ramani were running a restaurant by the name and style of 'Once Upon A time'.3. It was unfaithful day of 29th of April 1999. Around 300 to 400 people had attended that party. After 1.00 a.m or so 70-80 people remained while other had left. It was 2.00 a.m in the night when Malini Ramani and deceased Jessica Lal and complainant Shyan Munshi and a waiter were present Along with 5-6 more persons i...
Bsbk Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ217(Del); 2004(73)DRJ693
S.K.Mahajan, J.1. Rule.2. The matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and is disposed of by this order.3. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the civil construction work. It was awarded the contract of construction of infrastructure works, etc. by the respondent in Sector-4 at the Relocation of Industries Project, Udyog Vihar, Bawana in November, 2000. There were certain additional/extra items of work directed by the respondent to be undertaken by the petitioner and certain items were also substituted after the award of the work. The work is stated to have been completed on 21.10.2002 and the defect liability period was to expire one year after the completion of the project. It is alleged that despite persistent demands, the entire payment under the running bills and the final bill were not made by the respondent. On 17.10.2003, i.e., three days before the expiry of the defect liability period, the...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. the Asian Age and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ134
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The present contempt proceedings stand initiated on the facts as noted by us in our order dated 30.5.2003, under which we had issued a notice to show cause against the contemnors as to why they be not proceeded against and punished for having committed contempt of court. Since the facts stand crystalised in the said order, rather than re-stating the facts, we note our order dated 30.5.2003. The same reads as under :'News item under the caption 'Plea in Court to name Judge as fraud accused' published in 'The Asian Age' dated 30.5.2003, New Delhi edition has come to our notice. News item, as published in the newspaper, reports that Mr. Mohan Murthi Shandilya had moved an application on May 5, 2001 before Metropolitan Magistrate Kamini Lao. The report, inter alia, in verbatim, purports to record the averments made in the said application stated to have been filed by Mohan Murthi Shandilya in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The quoted portion of the applicati...
Shiv Kumar Thakur Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT437; 2004(75)DRJ475
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The prayer in this Petition is for the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the wrongful prosecution of the Petitioner. The allegation is that money was demanded from the Petitioner by a police officer with the threat that otherwise a case will be registered against him. The bribe having not been paid, an FIR was lodged. The Petitioner was arrested on 30.8.1998 and despite numerous applications for being enlarged on bail, remained incarcerated till 27.7.2001 on which date he was acquitted by a detailed Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The following observations in the Judgment have been especially relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner:'12. From the entire evidence recorded in the case, I come to the conclusion that it is a case, in which the accused has been falsely implicated because the accused could not pay money to the police. The accused himself got burnt in this case. He was frequent visitor to the...
Sh. Mohd. Umar Vs. Smt. Azimunnisa and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT577; 2004(74)DRJ51
R.C. Jain, J.1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') is directed against the order dated 20th July, 2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi thereby dismissing an application of the tenant seeking leave to contest the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act and passing an eviction order in respect of the suit premises.2. The respondents-landlords had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the `Tenant') with the averments and allegations that their predecessor-in-interest Sh.Hafizuddin @ Mohd.Idris was the owner of property No.4534, Gali Shahtara, Shish Mahal, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. He having died on 13th June, 1997 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs who have inherited the suit property as joint owners. Mohd.Umar was inducted as a tenant in respect of the first floo...
Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. Durga Pershad Sharma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC156; 2004ACJ672
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The deceased Raj Kumar was earning his livelihood by plying a three-wheeler scooter rickshaw. Appellants being his widow, three minor children and parents were dependent on him. On 3.8.1981, at about 1.45 p.m. motor car bearing No. DLI 1927 being driven by the respondent No. 1 hit the scooter of the deceased. As a consequence of the accident Raj Kumar died.2. Claim petition was filed claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act.3. By an award dated 23.5.1991 it has been held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of the respondent No. 1. It has been held that the car bearing No. DLI 1927 was owned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and stood insured with the respondent No. 4.4. Holding that the deceased was aged 26 years as on the date of his death and the evidence on record suggested that as a scooter driver the deceased was earning between Rs. 30 and Rs. 40 per day, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 800 per month. ...
Sangeeta Vs. Surender Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC266; 2004ACJ817
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. The appellant Sangeeta was a student of class IX and was aged 14 years, when on 28.3.1978 she met with an accident involving bus No. DEP 2260 and as a result of the accident she sustained injury on her left thigh. She suffered severe damage to the muscles and as per the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 had to undergo numerous operations to provide skin-grafting to the damaged left leg and she remained under medical treatment till 26.5.1978.2. The bus in question was owned by the respondent No. 3 who was conducting business as a transporter under the name and style of respondent No. 6. The bus was a private bus but was operating under the control of D.T.C., respondent No. 5. The bus was insured with respondent No. 4.3. By the award dated 4.12.1987, the learned M.A.C.T. held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, which was being driven by the respondent No. 1. It was held that no liability could be fastened on respondent No. 5, D.T.C. Aw...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »