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.
Kanwar Shamsher Singh and ors. Vs. Satbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ789
P. Nandrajog, J.1. Deceased Rajender Kaur, wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 was a housewife. She was also doing social service being the honorary manager of Shri Pratap Singh Memorial High School. As on 18.6.1984 she was aged 30 years.2. On 18.6.1984 she had undertaken a journey in bus No. DEP 6016 from Kotla Mubarakpur to Sadiq Nagar.3. While deboarding the bus, she fell down and as a result of the injuries died.4. Appellants filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.5. On the basis of the evidence, by the award dated 12.3.1991, Tribunal held that the driver of the bus did not stop the bus at the bus stand where the deceased had to deboard the bus. Passengers shouted at the driver to stop the bus so that the deceased could deboard the same. The driver got angry and stopped the bus a little away from the bus stop. When the deceased was in the process of deboarding, the driver sped away and as a result thereof deceased, who then had one foot outside...
Man Structurals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT392TriDel
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-original, the appellants have only disputed their liability to pay interest as confirmed against them under Section 11AB of the Act. The learned Counsel has contended that the provisions of Section 11AB could not be invoked for demanding the interest as there was no suppression of the facts by the appellants from the Department.Even the show cause notice was issued to them within a period of one year without alleging any suppression of the material facts from the Department by the appellants.2. On the other hand, the learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. We have heard both the sides. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants were admittedly not entitled to the benefit of the Notification 108/95, dated 28-8-95 as the supply of the goods by them was to the authorities not included in the above said notification.They had even paid duty voluntarily by debiting in th...
Parry Mouldings and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC112
1. The appellants are defendants 1 to 3 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') in Q.A.410/1999 filed by the respondent Bank for the recovery of the debt due to it from the appellants/ defendants. On 26.9.2001, the DRT passed the ex pane final order in view of the failure of the appellants/defendants to appear and pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- already imposed by the DRT on appellants/defendants 1 to 3. The appellants/defendants filed an application to set aside the said ex pane final order urging that though the Counsel for the appellants/ defendants had informed them that the date of hearing was 26.9.2001, the 2nd defendant, who was attending to the case, mistook the date as 28.9.2001 and, therefore, he could not appear on 26.9.2001 before the DRT. The further case of the appellants/defendants is that the Counsel for the appellants/defendants had informed the 2nd defendant that on 26.9.2001 he (Counsel) would not be appearing before the DRT, ...
Balbir Singh Sawhney Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)226; 108(2003)DLT713
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 242/2003 under Sections 78/79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. 2. Prosecution allegations, in brief, are that on a complaint made on behalf of M/s. Motor Industries Company Ltd., a raid was conducted on 29.7.2003 at a godown situated at B-1089 Shastri Nagar, Delhi and a number of duplicate, spurious filters of MICO company in packed condition were seized by the police from one Varinder Singh, co-accused who was stated to be present there at the spot and was arrested. On interrogation of said Varinder Singh and at his instance few more such like filters were seized from two shops and two more persons namely Raj Kumar and Deepak were arrested. They were, subsequently, released on bail. During interrogation, Varinder Singh, in his disclosure statement, stated that Balbir Singh Sawhney is the owner of the fac...
Mcd Vs. Krishna Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ708
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule.2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition challenges the Order dated 1st September, 2001, passed by the Labour Court in LCA. No. 556 of 1993 which upheld the entitlement of the respondent No. 1/workman to emoluments of Rs. 27,577.83 for the period starting from 20th February, 1984 to December, 1988 payable as per an earlier award dated 13th May, 1988 which entitled her such payment claimed in this application to be made to such of the B-Grade Staff Nurses, who had put in requisite period of three years of service and worked on the post of A-Grade Staff Nurse.4. It is not in dispute that in, view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court that all such conditions were satisfied by the respondent No. 1/workman. The petitioner management's witnesses had not appeared for their cross-examination and accordingly their evidence was rightly not taken into account. The respondent No. ...
Sukumar Pattjoshi Vs. Rajdeep Leasing and Finance and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC714; 2005ACJ1292
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Admit. The matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.2. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident, mainly on three grounds, namely, (1) that the appellant was admittedly 30 years of age at the time of the accident and, thereforee, to arrive at the loss of income the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 18 in place of 15; (2) that there was no rebuttal to the evidence of the appellant that he was immobilised till July, 1993 and could not attend to work for a period of 7 months because of the injuries suffered by him and appellant was, thereforee, entitled to the loss of income for these 7 months whereas the Tribunal has awarded only three months income as the loss of income sustained by the appellant; and (3) that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering.3. Under Second Schedule t...
international Trading and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)50
ORDERRam Bahadem, J.M.This appeal, by the assessed, arises out of the order of Dy. CIT Circle-11 (1), New Delhi dated 28-3-2002, passed under section 254/158BD read with section 158BC(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the block period 1-4-1986 to 2-11-1996.2. Below reproduced are the grounds of appeal'1. That the initiation of proceeding under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act is wholly arbitrary and is without jurisdiction. The precondition for invoking the provisions of section 158BD of the Income Tax Act were since not satisfied the assumption of jurisdiction was wholly erroneous and as such assessment made is also not tenable.2. That the learned Dy. CIT has failed to appreciate that, before proceeding to frame the instant assessment, he had to firstly establish, in view of the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment which having been modified by the High Court, that there was a material found as a result of search on the basis of which the assessing officer having ju...
United General Fiance Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)74
ORDERRambaradur, J.M.;This appeal, by the assessed, arises out of the order of Dy. CIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi dated 28-3-2002, passed under section 254/158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the block period 1-4-1986 to 2-11-1996.2. Below reproduced are the grounds of appeal:'1. That the initiation of proceeding under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act is wholly arbitrary and is without jurisdiction. The precondition for invoking the provisions of section 158BD of the Income Tax Act were since not satisfied, the assumption of jurisdiction was wholly erroneous and as such assessment made is also not tenable.2. That the learned Dy. CIT has failed to appreciate that, before proceeding to frame the instant assessment, he had to firstly establish, in view of the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment which having been modified by the High Courts, that there was a material found as a result of search on the basis of which the assessing officer having jurisdiction on the assesse...
Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT540TriDel
1. The issue in the instant appeal relates to the central excise duty liability on "Tools & Dies" (sub-heading No. 8207.00) The appellants manufactured the said "Tools and Dies" and used the same captively for manufacturer of bicycle and parts thereof (sub heading No. 8712.00 & 8714.00 respectively) and Rims for mopeds and Motor Cycles (sub heading No. 8714.00). Pursuant t the contents of an audit objection, it was alleged that duty on Tools & Dies manufactured by the appellants and used captively in the manufacture of bicycles and parts thereof is leviable, because the bicycle and parts thereof are chargeable to nil rate of duty and the goods captively consumed are eligible to duty exemption (under Notification o. 67/95-CE) only when the finished goods are cleared on payment of duty which is not the case. The appellants paid the duty demanded but have contested the issue before the lower authorities without success.3. It is clearly established that the "Tools & Dies",...
K.C. Bearing Co. and Kishan Chand Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC204
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.4.1998, the shop and godown of M/s. K.C. Bearing Co. were searched by the Officers of Customs Department and the ball bearing of foreign origin valued at Rs. 29,07,475 were recovered. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscation of the ball bearing as well as for imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confiscated the ball bearing and gave the option to the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50 lakhs. A penalty of 20 lakhs was also imposed on Shri Kishan Chand, partner of M/s. K.C. Bearing Co.4. The contention of the appellants is that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The adjudicating authority fixed the date for cross-examination of the witnesses and no witnesses was present. On that date one Doctor Devendra Kumar appeared befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »