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.
Prem Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CTLJ200(Del); 2004(72)DRJ289; (2004)137PLR11
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the letter dated 26.06.2003, whereby the petitioner's contract for washing of clothes has been terminated. Certain allegations have been mentiond in the letter of termination. It is clear that the arrangement between the petitioner and the respondents 2-4 was purely contractual. Earlier, the contract for washing had been given to the petitioner's father and the contracts were renewed from time to time since 1947. The contract was transferred to the petitioner, upon the request of the petitioner's father, by the respondents 2-4 on or about 1993. Thereafter, the contractual relationship between the petitioner on the one hand, and the respondents 2-4 on the other hand, has continued. This contractual relationship has been sought to be brought to an end by the letter dated 26.06.2003 which is impugned in the present petition.2. It is well-settled that purely contractual matters do not fall withi...
Dharam Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT69; 2004(72)DRJ383
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot expeditiously and make the recommendation for allotment of alternative plot at the earliest.2. Before examining the facts of the case, it would be relevant to note that the writ petition was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 14.2.2003. However, this court restored the writ petition by an order dated 04.03.2003. On the same day, the respondents were granted a last opportunity to file their counter affidavits and the matter was listed for 04.08.2003. In the order dated 04.03.2003 it was clearly indicated that the learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform the counsel for the respondents in writing about the passing of the said order of 04.03.2003 as well as the next date of hearing. When the matter was listed before this court o...
Santosh Mishra Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT892; 2004(74)DRJ526; 2004(92)ECC640
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner incase FIR No. 775/2002 under Sections 17/61/85, NDPS Act, P.S. Uttam Nagar.2. Prosecution allegations in brief are that on 13.10.2002, SI Tejpal Singh along with other staff were on patrol duty near the DDA Flats, Vindapur, Delhi; at about 9 p.m., he received information that one person with opium will be coming near the Mazar; SI informed the senior officers, on telephone; he was ordered to form a raiding party; SI asked 4-5 persons to join the raiding party, but they declined to do so and went away without telling their names and addresses; at about 9.30 p.m., the petitioner was found coming with a polythene bag in his hand; he was identified by the informer; after looking at the police party, the petitioner tried to run, but he was overpowered; he was given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He declined the offer to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magist...
Goverdhan Lal Soni Vs. Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT4b; 2004(74)DRJ287
R.C. Jain, J.1. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Goverdhan Lal Soni (hereinafter to be referred to as the alleged `sub-tenant') seeks to challenge the order of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 20th November, 2002 thereby allowing an appeal filed by M/s.Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the `landlord') against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th September, 1999 dismissing an eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises.2. Briefly, the germane facts leading to the present petition are that the above named landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the `Act') with the averments and allegations that the suit premises comprising of an industrial shed measuring 900 sq.ft. and one room measuring 250 sq.ft. situated within ISI ...
Ranbir Singh and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT296; II(2004)DMC171
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The parties are present. This is a petition seeking quashing of the FIR No. 707/1998 under Sections 498A, 406/34, IPC registered at P.S. Mehrauli, arising out of marital discords and disputes between the parties. Complainant wife who is present in Court states that they have patched up their differences amicably and started living together since 21st January, 2003. She further states that she is living happily and does not want to continue with these proceedings. It appears that good senses have prevailed upon the parties as they have started living together. Continuation of these proceedings will serve no purpose and will be rather counter productive to their smooth marital life. The petition is allowed. Impugned FIR and the proceedings arising there from stand quashed.The proceedings against the accused which has been shown in column No. 2 also stand quashed.Petition is disposed of....
India Poly Fibres Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC422
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. India Poly Fibres Ltd., is whether the crimped uncut waste is classifiable under sub-heading 5503.19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as waste as claimed by them or under sub-heading 5501.20 of the Tariff as polyster tow or staple fibre.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Polyster Staple Fibres (PSF); that during the manufacture of PSF, waste arises at various stages; that crimped uncut waste arises during the process of drawing and crimping of undrawn polyster filament obtained after spinning and Polymerisation; that while the filaments pass through the crimping machine, the required uniform pressure is applied to the crimper gate which takes up to 20 seconds to develop and, therefore, the front portion of the Tow which emerges out of the crimper is usually not properly crimped; that such tow would normally have one or more of the following defects, namely, uneven c...
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT481TriDel
2. The appellants have sought waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 2,93,882/- in Appeal No. E/2521/03-NB(S) and of Rs. 2,45,829/- in Appeal No. E/2522/03-NB(S) which has been confirmed against them by denying them the deemed Modvat credit. The only ground on which the credit has been disallowed is that, the appellants did not receive the goods directly from the manufacturer and that payment was also not made by them directly to the manufacturer.3. I have perused the record and the impugned order in both the appeals. I find that the facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are a Haryana State Government Undertaking. They placed the order for the goods with the Steel Authority of India as they could not directly place the order with the manufacturing company. The Steel Authority of India on behalf of the appellants thereafter directed the manufacturer, M/s. Karam Steel Corpn. for supply of the goods. The goods were supplied by that manufacturer to the appellants. Tho...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT45TriDel
1. This appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit of Rs. 36,010/- on capital goods to the respondents under Rule 57Q for the period May 1998. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses. One of their capital goods is rotor assembly. There is no dispute in this case that rotor assembly is a part of the appellants sugar plant and hence eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 for Modvat purpose.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellants had sent the above machine for repairs to a job worker; that the job worker repaired the machine by using fresh inputs and cleared the repaired/tested machine to the appellants under Rule 52A invoice on payment of excise duty of Rs. 36,010/-; that the appellants took credit of the said duty under Rule 57Q; that the Department challenged this action of the appellants by issuing a show cause notice; that the appellan...
Commercial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT297TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the appellant/importer challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dt. 1-9-2003 regarding the value of the goods imported by the appellant.2. On going through the order of the adjudicating authority, we find that the transaction value was rejected apparently only for the reason that the importer could not produce the manufacturer's invoice. It is admitted in the order that there are no contemporary imports of similar or identical goods. It is also mentioned therein that the same goods were not available in the market. Under these circumstances, adjudicating authority could not determine the value under Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and a market enquiry was done to find out the price of the goods imported. The market enquiry report was never given to the appellant nor it is available before us at the time of hearing.3. In the facts of the case, we find that there is no justification on the part of the lower authorities to r...
J.B. Promoters Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT344TriDel
1. This appeal is alleged to have been filed on behalf of M/s. J. B.Promoters through Shri Atul Jain, Ex-Director. It has been brought to our notice by Id. DR that the Company J.B. Promoters was wound up by order, dt. 31-5-2002 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. This fact is not disputed by the ld. Counsel who is appearing for the appellant.It that be so, the present appeal which is filed on behalf of the company is not maintainable.2. Ld. Counsel submits that the Department is taking proceedings against the Ex-Director who has signed the present appeal on behalf of the Liquidated Company for realising the amounts found due from the company under the impugned order. Therefore, Ex-Director is a 'person aggrieved' and on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502 the appeal is maintainable as the Ex-Director is the 'person aggrieved'.3. We are afraid that the ld...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »