Delhi Court February 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.
Shyam Sunder Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)523; 106(2003)DLT146
Devinder Gupta, ACJ 1. The petitioners have in this writ petition sought quashing of notices Annexure P12 (Colly.) dated 18.10.1999 issued by Assistant Engineer-111, P.W.D., Division-XIV, Delhi informing the petitioners that they had unauthorisedly occupied land of Ring Road, Phase-III belonging to Public Works Department. After the aforementioned notices were received by the petitioners, they on 27.10.1999 sent similar reply Annexure P13 (Colly.) pointing out that 150 ft. wide land has been acquired for construction of Ring Road so far under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act from Raja Garden Chowk towards Maya Puri Chowk. The petitioners by making reference to various acquisition proceedings, which had taken place, asserted that they were not in unauthorised possession of any part of the Government land. The total acquired land for Ring Road width was only 150 ft. The land in their occupation was beyond the acquired width and unless further 60 ft. width was acquired under the...
Hansaflon Plastochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT94TriDel
1. The duty demand in the present case is in respect of Poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylene Coatings (PTFE) manufactured by the appellant during the year 1994-95. This case had come up before us earlier and we had remanded the matter for fresh consideration vide our Final Order No.218/2001-A, dated 21-5-2001 with the following observations. "8. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that though the department has fixed the labour charges at about 15% yet no evidence has been placed on record to show as to how this figure of 15% was obtained. We further note that the appellants have been selling the goods (PTFE coatings) to some independent buyers. There should have been some invoices available and these invoices should have been examined to ascertain the value of PTFE coating. We further note that an affidavit was submitted by the appellants regarding the value of PTFE coating being 7% to 8% but no comparative proof has been brought on records by the Revenue. The Chartered Accountan...
Ex. Sep. Hari Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its Secretary, to ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)75; 103(2003)DLT1; 2003(68)DRJ258; 2003(1)SLJ217(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. A short question is involved in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner joined Army on 6th July,1941 and he was discharged on account of demobilisation on 14th May, 1947. Thereafter the petitioner was again recruited in the defense Security Force from 4th July, 1960 and he superannuated on 5th July, 1969. It was contended before us by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner rendered in all 14 years 10 months and 15 days service and he is entitled for pension in terms of Rule 124 and 125 of Pension Regulations as well as the letter of the Army Head Quarter dated 10/16 February, 1976.2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petition suffers from delay and laches as the petitioner has approached this Court after 30 years and in the army the record is destroyed after 25 years. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has also cited a judgment of Division Bench of t...
Modern Food Industries Emp. Un. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)444; 109(2004)DLT597; 2004(76)DRJ20; 2004(2)SLJ506(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. RULE. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order. 3. Some of the members of the petitioner union were employed with respondent No.3. By an order of reference dated 16.2.1989, the appropriate government referred the dispute relating to the suspension of eight workers of the respondent-Management to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference: - 'Whether the suspension of S/Sh. S.P. Bhargava, K.K. Malhan, M.S. Puri, D.N. Pandey, V.K. Narang and Sh.G.S. Yadav is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'4. During the pendency of the proceedings, some of the employees either settled their matter with the Management or left the employment and the dispute remained only with respect to the suspension of Mr.V.K. Narang and Mr.G.S. Yadav. The aforesaid employees Mr.V.K. Narang and Mr.G.S. Yadav were placed under suspension w.e.f 9th July...
inderjeet Singh Vs. Ndmc
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)474; 103(2003)DLT470; 2003(69)DRJ44
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter called 'the said Act') dated 21st October, 2000.2. Shri Harinder Singh Saluja, respondent No. 3 was the original allottee of shop No. M-34, Palika Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in pursuance to a license dated 17th July, 1984. Proceedings were initiated against him by respondent No. 2 on 15th May, 1985 in respect of license fee from September, 1984 to August, 1992 and an eviction order was passed on 14th October, 1987 as also an order for damages. The appeal preferred by Shri Saluja was allowed on 29th July, 1988 and the impugned order dated 14th October, 1987 was quashed, The review petition filed to modify the order as one of a case of remand in respect of quashing was also dismissed on 29th July, 1988. Fresh proceedings were initiated on 11th January, 1993 against Sri Saluja and on 28th July, 1993, an application wa...
ito Vs. Om Prakash Arun Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)170
ORDERM.V. Nayar, A.M.:The grievance projected in this appeal by the revenue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-VI was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,30,000 paid as redemption fine to the Customs department, which is in violation of law and also erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 13,000 paid as personal penalty imposed by the Customs department, which is in violation of law.2. The assessed is a partnership firm and carries on its business of dealing in dry fruits at Delhi as head office and Amritsar as branch office. The firm had furnished its return of income on 26-2-1993, declaring the total income of Rs. 3,91,030. In respect of this assessment year, the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) vide order dated 28-2-1994, on an income of Rs. 4,63,774. The case was reopened under section 148 on the basis of information received from the Customs department through the officer of ADI (Investigation), Unit III, vide letter No. 622 dated 24-8-1994,...
Archna Luthansa Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN264(Delhi)
ORDERThe matter has been placed before the court for appropriate orders, as the assessed, at whose instance the reference has been made, has failed to file the paper books despite various opportunities.2. Although the assessed remains unrepresented, but since the issue raised in the present reference stands concluded by a decision of the Apex Court, we dispense with the filing of the paper books and proceed to dispose of the reference.3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal did not err in law in holding that the assessed could not be treated as the owner of commercial flats in multistoried buildings known as Ansal Bhawan, Akashdeep and Surya Kiran, New Delhi ?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance...
S.V. Electricals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT617TriDel
2. None is present for the appellants. Their request for adjournment cannot be entertained as no cause has been disclosed in the request for adjournment.4. I have gone through the impugned order. The appellants had been disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 31,855/- which they availed in respect of the goods, namely, Grinding Machine and Lathe Machine on the ground that these were used only for breakdown maintenance and correcting the tools and spare parts of machines. They themselves even disclosed this use in the declaration filed under Rule 57T(2) of the Rules. Therefore, keeping in view the use of the goods, the Modvat credit has been rightly declined to the appellants being not 'Capital Goods' in terms of Explanation to Rule 57Q of the Rules for taking Modvat credit.5. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) so as to admit the appeal for hearing. Therefore, the appeal of the appellants is rejected....
Ramco Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC227Tri(Delhi)
1. Heard. The applicants have moved the present ROM seeking rectification of mistakes in the impugned final order dated 12.4.2002 vide which their appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, on the ground that their contentions had not at all been discussed and were the case law cited by them including the Apex Court judgment in CCE v. Dai Ich Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353 which had been followed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel, 2002 (48) RLT 789, has not been referred. Therefore, there appears apparent mistake of fact and law in the impugned order and the same deserves to be recalled. Learned JDR has not been able to refute the contention of the counsel 2. I have also gone through the impugned final order and I do not find any discussion of the case law relied upon by the appellants in the order. No independent findings had also been recorded by the Bench for passing the impugned order against them. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a fit case t...
Ex. Const. Ravinder Mohan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)123; 103(2003)DLT39; 2003(68)DRJ37; 2003(1)SLJ224(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR296
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in Border Security Force as Constable on 31st June, 1988. Initially, he was posted at Malda in West Bengal. Thereafter, from time to time, he remained posted at Delhi, Hissar, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. In the course of service, he developed some mental disorder. In December, 1997, his condition deteriorated. He was diagnosed as suffering from Atypical Psychosis and Schizophrenia. He was treated for the same at different places, including at BSF Hospital. Under medical advice, he was given light duty(unarmed). In August 1999, he sought to resign from service. He was, accordingly, discharged from service without any financial benefits with effect from 18.8.1999 vide order of even date. According to the petitioner, as he was not in a sound state of mind on account of the aforesaid mental ailment with which he was suffering from, his application seeking to resign from service could not have been acted upon and in view of Rule 25 of the Bor...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »