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.
D.S. Tewatia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ283; 2004(3)SLJ449(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is placed before me by the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in view of the difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges of this court in respect of the issue which is involved in the present petition. The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether a Chief Justice, who has not even put in one year of completed service as Chief Justice is entitled to be paid pension of a Chief Justice at Rs. 54,000/- per annum.2. The petitioner herein was appointed on 6th February, 1970 as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. On 8th April, 1972 the petitioner was made a permanent Judge of the same High Court. However, the petitioner was subsequently transferred as a Judge of Karnataka High Court and on such transfer he assumed charge and duties as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court, on 27th June, 1976. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was again transferred back and he assumed the duties as of a Judg...
Rani and ors. Vs. SahabuddIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ837
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. By an award dated 31.7.1989 the learned M.A.C.T. has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 as compensation to the appellants to be shared in the manner as contained in the award.2. On 15.1.1987 the deceased Ramesh Kumar, who was employed as a driver was driving a car when the same met with an accident with a bus driven by the respondent No. 1 and owned by the respondent No. 3. It has been held in the impugned award that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the bus by the respondent No. 1 and the said issue has, thereforee, attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the respondents.3. In assessing the compensation the learned Claims Tribunal has held that as per Exh. PW3/1, the salary certificate of the deceased, he was earning a salary of Rs. 980 p.m. The deceased was entitled to perks being bonus equivalent to 20 per cent of salary, leave encashment, medical allowance and rent free accommodation. Learned Tribunal valued these perks and held...
Baldev Kaur and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2006ACJ599
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation assessed by the M.A.C.T. vide its order dated 6.4.1989.2. By the impugned award it has been held that on the intervening night of 137 14.2.1981 the deceased Sardar Singh who was traveling on a two-wheeler scooter died as a result of an accident occasioned by the rash and negligent driving of bus No. HYA 8128 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, driven by respondent No. 3.3. In determining the compensation in the sum of Rs. 96,000, Tribunal held that keeping in view the fact that age of the deceased was 50 years, multiplier of 10 was appropriate. Deceased was self-employed, manufacturing machines on contract basis for different companies, it was held that since the deceased was not assessed to income tax, income would be less than the taxable limits and was taken at Rs. 1,200-1,300 per month. Since the income above Rs. 15,000 per annum was liable for tax in the year 1981. After deducting, what according to ...
Smruti Pottery Works and Sunrise Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC701
1. The issue involved in both these appeals is whether the Appellants M/s. Smruti Pottery Works and M/s. Sunrise Pottery Works are eligible to get their free shipping bills converted into DFRC Shipping Bills.2.1 Shri Krishnakant, learned Advocate, submitted that both the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of all types of sanitary wares; that in 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 they exported consignments of sanitary wares under Shipping Bills; that they wanted to avail benefit of DFRC in respect of their exports which has been refused by the Customs Authorities as the Certificate from Central Excise officers listing the inputs used in the manufacture of the export product was required; that in these circumstances they were forced to file free shipping bills; that the Board, under Circular No.6/2003 dated 28.1.2003 has clarified that in all those cass, where the exporters were not allowed to file shipping bills under a particular export promotion scheme and had to export goods ...
Jct Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC692
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period April 1990 to June 1990 paid excess excise duty at the time of clearance of their goods (polyester staple fibre) manufactured out of duty paid Purified Terephathelic Acid (PTA). They filed refund claim of Rs. 23,81,776.35 on 22.4.97. The Assistant Commissioner rejected their claim vide Order-in-Original dated 31.5.2000 on the ground of unjust enrichment for having passed on burden of duty of the customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked for rejecting refund claim of the appellant on the ground, - (i) the invoices issued by the appe...
Sanjay V. Modi and Ajanta Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC24
1. These three appeals have arisen out of a common Order-in-Original No. 30/94 dated 28.6.94 passed by the Collector, Central Excise. Two appeals have been filed by M/s. Ajanta Synthetics and their Director Shri Sanjay V. Modi against confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty and Penalty. The third appeal has been filed by the Revenue against dropping of some demand of duty and imposing penalty not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.2. Briefly stated the facts are that on the basis of intelligence to the effect that M/s. Ajanta Synthetics were indulging in evasion of duty on processed man made fabrics by resorting to suppression of production, mis-declaration and clandestine removal of excisable goods, the Central Excise Officers searched their premises on 29.1.1988 and seized unaccounted stock of processed and finished man made fabrics valued at Rs. 2,17,908. They also seized packed fabrics valued at Rs. 1,41,173 lying in the godown of M/s. Prabhat Textile. The Collecto...
Ranjit Kaur Vs. Healthy Holdings Pvt. Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)32; 108(2003)DLT178; 2003(71)DRJ777; [2004]52SCL182(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This winding up petition is based on a notice dated 15th April, 1997 under Section 433 of the Companies Act claiming dues as per Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th February, 1994. The claim is founded on the liability of Rs. 50, 000/- per month arising as per clause 7 of the said MOU. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the said Memorandum relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner read as follows:'5. That the amount of Rs. 1, 15, 000/- and Rs. 55, 000/- paid by Gobind Impex Private Limited and Healthy Holdings Private Limited respectively to the party of the First Part as imprest for the period 1st April, 1993 onwards shall stand adjusted against the bills for expenses and for use of assets and agricultural apparatus of the party of the First Part to be raised by the said party. Further the amounts due from Good Faith Construction Private Limited and Healthy Holdings Private Limited amount to Rs. 1, 59, 000/- and Rs. 54, 000/- respectively...
Shri Gulshan Rai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)63; 108(2003)DLT85; 2004(72)DRJ83; 2004(2)SLJ334(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The petitioners, who were employees of the Supreme Court of India were sent on deputation on 31.08.1990 to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) [hereinafter referred to as the 'said Tribunal']. The said Tribunal has its office at Janpath, New Delhi. The petitioners as a part of their employment with the Supreme Court of India were in occupation of Government accommodation from the general pool. The question that arises in the present petition is with regard to their right to retain the same during the period of their deputation with the said Tribunal as also the question of their liability to pay license fee thereforee. It is to be noted that these four petitioners ultimately returned to the Supreme Court by the end of 1994.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the first instance, the petitioners would not be liable to pay anything more than the normal license fee in respect of the period on which they were on deputa...
Manpreet Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)277; 2004CriLJ530; 108(2003)DLT551; 2004(72)DRJ28; 2004(1)JCC1
Usha Mehra, J.1. Manpreet Singh and Prabhpreet Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions on the charge that on 21st April, 1999 they committed the murder of Raj Kumar Vajpayee an employee of one Rajiv Bansal a share broker. Charges under Section 302/201, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) were framed against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the entire link in the chain of circumstances leading to no hypothesis other than that of guilt. He convicted them under Section 302 as well as under Section 201, IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 201, IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further undergo R.I. for five months. The sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was accorded to them.2. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, appeal has...
S.K. Bhatia Vs. C.B.i.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4730; 110(2004)DLT393; 2004(72)DRJ324
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. Short question pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 7th October, 2002 whereby charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 for having acquired assets disproportionate to the known source of his income is whether the sanction for prosecution was granted by a competent authority or not.2. According to the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution on the basis of the investigation the petitioner started his career as Junior Engineer with CPWD on 21st September, 1978 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1640-2900 and he served in various divisions of CPWD and in March, 1988 he joined Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department at Janpath New Delhi on deputation. Admittedly the sanction for prosecution has been granted by the Superintending Engineer of Appropriate Authority of the Income Tax Department, a borrowing d...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »