Delhi Court December 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. D.K. Group of Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT350TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/Cus/Jal/2003, dated 24-6-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jalandhar. The appellant is represented by the DR, Shri S.C. Pushkarna. The respondent is not present, nor represented. It appears that they want a decision on merits without being personally heard.2. Ld. DR submits that the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar had no jurisdiction in the matter which relates to Customs (Preventive), Amritsar. In support of this submission, ld. DR refers to Notification No. 16/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-3-2002 as amended by Notification No.78/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 5-12-2002.3. I have perused both the cited notifications and find that, w.e.f 5-12-2002 the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar has no jurisdiction over matters falling within the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar and that such matters are appealable only to Commissioner of Customs (Appe...
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT223TriDel
1. Appellant M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. manufactures different varieties of aerated water. They are liable to central excise duty on ad valorem basis. These goods have also been specified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. As a result, they become liable to be valued for the purpose of central excise duty based on MRP affixed on them. The percentage of deduction as notified would be allowed on MRP, the resultant amount taken as the assessable value for levy of duty.2. On 28-2-2000, the appellant filed a declaration under Rule 173C(2A) intimating the Central Excise authorities about change/revision of MRP.The subsequent verification showed that appellant had cleared after 28-2-2000 and also goods under pre-revised MRPs and discharged duty on that basis. Under the impugned order, duty demand has been raised in respect of clearances of goods on which increase in MRP had been intimated, on the ground that duty has not been paid according to the declared MRP. Simi...
Sultan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ460
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.3.2001 and order of sentence dated 29.3.2001 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default RI for one year.2. The case of prosecution is that on 26.5.99 at about 1.05 p.m. when appellant was apprehended and searched on the basis of secret information he was found in possession of 5 gram of smack. Appropriate charges under Section 21 of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and other material on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charges against the appellant proved and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. 3. In appeal learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate, has not challenged the conviction of the appellant. He has pleaded for leniency in the matter of sente...
Dr. Yaswant Singh Vs. Medical Council of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT114; 2004(75)DRJ57
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner has alleged that he qualified in the Intermediate/10+2 examination of the C.B.S.E. in 1992, but he had not secured over 50 per cent marks. He was thus ineligible to seek admission to a Medical College in India. He successfully completed the full-time 6 years course of Medical Science and was awarded Degree/Diploma in General Medicine from Kuben State Medical Academy (Russian Federation) in 1999. On 20.7.2001 he applied to the Medical Council of India (MCI) for provisional registration to pursue his Internship in India. This Application was rejected for the reason that the Petitioner had not secured 50 per cent marks in English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the CBSE. He thereupon filed CWP No. 6642/2001 which was disposed of in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2779/2002 entitled MCI v. Indian Doctors from Russia Welfare Association and Others, II : AIR2002SC1565 . The following guidelines were passed in that...
Standard Electricals Limited Vs. Rocket Electricals and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ794; 2004(28)PTC26(Del)
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. This order will dispose of is 3314/03 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or in any manner using the trade mark MS STANDARD or any other mark identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark STANDARD, in relation to the electrical switchgear including MCBs, isolators, RCCBs, distribution boards, FR PVC wires, MCCBs, switch disconnector fuses, changeover-rewirable-double break switches, HBC fuses and plugs and sockets etc. and/or cognate and allied goods and further from doing any other thing as may constitute passing off and acts of unfair competition and from doing any act as may result in dilution of the plaintiffs trade mark and trade name and is 3843/03 filed by defendant No. 2 under Order 39 Rules 3 & 4, CPC for vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 21.3.2003 whereby the defendants were restrained, a...
M.L. Khullar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ162
D.K. Jain, J. Rule D.B.An order, dated 14 July 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.492/1998 forms the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's original application seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to changeover from State Railway Provident Fund (in short 'SRPF') to the pension scheme, introduced vide Railway Board's letter dated 22 July 1974 and further extended in terms of their letter dated 4 October 1982.2. The background, in which the petition has come to be filed, is as follows:The petitioner joined the services of Railways on 24 December 1948 as an Assistant Electrical Engineer on his selection by the Federal Public Service Commission. He superannuated on 31 July 1982 as Chief Administrative Officer, Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways) New Delhi. At the time when the petitioner had joined the service, th...
Mr. Ashit Kapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi203; 109(2004)DLT224; 2004(72)DRJ652; (2004)137PLR23; [2004]51SCL187(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These writ petitions raise identical issues and are, thereforee, with the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal together. 2. The issue involved in these petitions is with regard to the categorisation of insurance surveyors and loss assessors and particularly those with regard to motor insurance claims. 3. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions are insurance surveyors/loss assessors. Originally, under the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) there were no categorisation of insurance surveyors / loss assessors. Subsequently, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 came into effect (hereinafter referred to as the IRDA) and even the said Act was amended. Pursuant to the said amendment and the coming into effect of the IRDA, the Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulations) were bro...
Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs. Medical Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT142; 2004(75)DRJ480
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner has averred that he completed his schooling in India and had obtained admission in the State Medical Academy of Kirghizia in 1992. On learning of the decision of the General Body of the MCI taken on 17.9.1997 to the effect that the students who had been admitted in institutions not recognised by the MCI would not be eligible for registration in India, the Petitioner migrated to the State Medical University of Odessa, Ukraine duly recognised by the MCI. However, by this time he was already in the VIth/Final Year of his Medical Course. In 1998 he completed the full course of General Medicine and was awarded the degree of General Medicine. The Petitioner thereafter applied for registration with the MCI but the registration was declined.2. This decision was challenged in CWP No. 5334/1998 which stood decided by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2779/2000. The operative part of the Judgment reads as follows:'6. In order to reg...
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT826; 2004(72)DRJ311
O.P. Dwivedi, J. CRLA 68-91-103/2002 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 14.1.2002 whereby appellant Rakesh Kumar was found guilty of offence u/s 420/ 468/ 471/ 363/ 366/506/384/120B IPC and the remaining two accused Chander Shekhar and Sri Chand were held guilty u/s 420/468/471/120B IPC and the order on sentence dated 16.2.2002 whereby appellant Rakesh was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years u/s 366 IPC and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default RI for two years. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years each for offences u/s 420/468/471/363/384 IPC and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. Convict Rakesh was also sentenced to undergo RI for six months each for offences under sections 120B and 506 IPC. Remaining two appellants Sri Chand and Chander Sekhar were sentenced to undergo RI for three years for each of offences u/s 420/468/471 IPC and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each for these offences in default RI for one year each. Co...
Dr. Namit Bhargava Vs. Medical Council of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT404; 2004(77)DRJ376
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The petitioner states that after completing his schooling in India he had obtained admission in the Altai State Medical Institute, Russia to pursue the M.D. (Physician) course. After two years of study therein he migrated to the Tver State Medical Academy in Russia which is duly recognised by the MCI. in 1998 he was awarded the qualification of Doctor of Medicine/M.D. (Physician). On 14.9.1998 he applied for registration with the MCI, but this was rejected for the reason that he had been initially admitted in an institution not recognised by the MCI.2. This decision was challenged in CWP No. 5343/1998 which stood decided by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2779/2000. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:'6. In order to regulate the grant of registration to such persons who have completed their degree abroad prior to 15.3.2001, the following guidelines are placed before this Court by the Government of India: (A) The case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »