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.
Anita @ Anta and ors. Vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(109)AWC937; 2004(72)DRJ327
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 438 read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 724/2002, under Sections 498-A/304-B, IPC, P.S. Badarpur.2. Learned APP for State submits that as per viscera report received from the FSL and the opinion of the doctor at AIIMS that death did not occur otherwise than under normal circumstances, thereforee, custodial interrogation of petitioners, at present, are not required.3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioners, in the event of their arrest, are ordered to be released on bail, on each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO.4. Petition stands disposed of.5. dusty....
Shiv Charan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT889; 2004(74)DRJ316
ORDER1. Petitioner Shiv Charan has approached this Court in February, 2002, after he was dispossessed somewhere in 1982-83, for claiming the following reliefs :'1. A writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case, and peruse the same. 2. A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the action of respondents in illegally taking possession of land of the petitioner admeasuring 2 bighas 14 bids was comprised in Khasra No. 605/2 situated in village Aali, New Delhi. 3. A writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to either forthwith give back possession of the land in question to the petitioner along with damages at the rate of Rs. 80,000 /- per bigha per year or acquire the same under the Land Acquisition Act and pay proper compensation for the same to the petitioner within a time-bound frame.'2....
Mefcom Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)246
ORDERBY THE BENCH:This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds but all grounds relate to an addition of Rs. 7.10 lakhs made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as an income from undisclosed sources.2. The facts borne out from the record are that the original assessment under section 143(3) was completed. Subsequently, the Commissioner set aside the order after having invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act and directed the assessing officer to reframe the assessment after making proper inquiry in respect of share applications received by the assessed. On inquiry, it was noticed that during the year various sums aggregating to Rs. 1.07 crores were found credited in the books of accounts of the assessed. When the assessed was asked about such credits, it was stated that these credits represented share application money received from eight companies. When the assessed was asked to explain and justify the ...
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC321
1. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. The department has demanded and confirmed the duty on 7000 qtls. of molasses for the year 1995-96 stored in approved steel tank No. 2, but which accidentally leaked therefrom and seeped into an adjoining kachcha pit. The high grade molasses quantity that leaked in the kachcha pit got inter-mixed with the low grade molasses in the kachcha pit affecting the quantity of the said 7,000 qtls. The loss of molasses due to storage in the steel tank was accidental. Though at the insistence of Range Officers the appellant had deposited duty of Rs. 7,000 @ 20% ad valorem taking the assessable value of Rs. 5 per qtl., the show-cause notice subsequently issued by the Range Superintendent alleged that, the appellant failed to provide safe and secure storage place and took no pains to prevent leakage of molasses and accordingly demanded duty at 20% ad valorem by adopting the assessable value at Rs. 40 per qtl. (price specified by State Gover...
Sudhir Engineering Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(92)ECC206
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Sudhir Engg. Co., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification no. 10/97-CE is available to D.G. Sets and control penals manufactured and removed by them.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants received an order for supply of one number of D.G. set and control panel from National Physical Laboratory (NPL) along with certificates issued by the Director, National Physical Laboratory in terms of Notification no. 10/97-CE certifying that the goods were required from research purposes; that Notification No. 10/97-CE exempts scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipments and accessories and spare parts thereof if these are supplied to the non-commercial research institutions subject to the conditions that an officer, not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, certifies that the institution is not engaged in any commercial activity and the goods are required for research purposes...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shyam Sunder Sharma
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT375TriDel
1. This is Revenue's appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), Allabahad. A vehicle was intercepted by Customs officers, Varanasi on 5-10-2000 which resulted into recovery of silk yarn of foreign origin. The detailed particulars of the goods are as under :- The driver produced no document in respect of silk yarn of foreign origin. Under the reasonable belief that, the said 81 kg. of twisted silk yarn has been made out of smuggled silk yarn, which had been brought into India in violation of the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the same was seized under Section 110. The other yarn being used to conceal the said silk yarn was also considered to be liable for confiscation under Section 119 and hence seized under Section 110 of the Act. The Maruti Van used for transportation was also seized. The bills produced to show the licit acquisition of the silk yarn were discar...
Raipur Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT245TriDel
1. The Miscellaneous application is for rectification of alleged mistakes in the interim stay order dated 16-7-2003 passed by this Bench. It also says that the stay order was complied with and the compliance reported to the Bench. We find that the compliance with the stay order was noted by the Bench on 26-8-2003 and the appeal was posted for hearing. We have since heard the appeal also. Nothing contained in the stay order has any bearing on the merits of the appeal in the final hearing. The miscellaneous application is infructuous.This apart, the application does not cite the provision of law invoked, nor has the Consultant been able to bring to our notice any provision of the Central Excise Act or of any Rules thereunder which could be invoked for rectification of any mistake in any interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal. Moreover, the application has been filed not by the party but by their consultant without even their affidavit. The application is dismissed.2. The appellants ...
The Benares State Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT227; 2004(72)DRJ57; (2004)ILLJ1118Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition filed by the Benares State Bank Limited initially challenged the virus of Notification dated 25th February, 2000, which made the arbitrary classification between banks and banks other than nationalized banks qua applicability of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as the `EPF Act').2. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition:-'(a) to quash the notification dated 25.2.00 (Annexure-H), issued by the Respondent No. 1, and, (b) to direct Respondents to issue decoverage certificate to the Petitioner, and, (c) to grant any further relief including the cost of this petition as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate.' 3. The relevant facts are as under:-(a) The petitioner is a private bank which operated from Varanasi, U.P. It was covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It thereafter opened a branch in Bombay ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Simplex Concrete Piles India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR536(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT732; 2004(72)DRJ53; 2004(1)RAJ320
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge whereby the objections of the appellant to the award of the Arbitrator were dismissed and the award was made a `rule' of the Court and decree in terms thereof was passed.3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two points to challenge the award, namely, (i) that under Clause 25 of the Arbitration Agreement in case a claim was not made within 90 days of the intimation from the Government that final bill was ready for payment, the claim of the contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred, and (ii) the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award pendent lite interest and consequently the award of interest by the Arbitrator is against law. 4. In my view, none of the two grounds on which the award has been challenged can be sustained. The Arbitrator has clearly held in the award that the final bill was ready only on 11.3.1983 and from this bill a sum of Rs. 15...
Mahender Singh Vs. Under Secretary, Freedom Fighter Cell and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)311; 108(2003)DLT641
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the 'Freedom Fighters' pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.08.1980 in terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Scheme').2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, in the first instance, referred to the scheme. He states that the petitioner would be covered under Explanationn 5 of paragraph 4 of the said scheme which reads as under:-'WHO IS ELIGIBLE?4. For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in a mainland jails before Independence. However, ex.-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India.(b) The minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibilities of pension has been reduced to three months, in case of women and SC/ST freedom fighters from 1-8-1980.EXPLANA...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »