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.
Kusum Lata Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)64; 107(2003)DLT3
Devinder Gupta, A.C.J.1. In this petition filed on 20.3.2002 following directions have been sought by the petitioner:(a) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the impugned Award No. 157/86-87 dated 19.9.1986 and notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act dated 27.1.1984 Along with notification under Section 6, L.A. Act dated 26.9.1984 to the extent of the property of the petitioner measuring 1 bigha 4 bids was situated in Khasra No. 89/23/2, village Palam, New Delhi; (b) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the proceedings of taking possession (Kabza Karyawahi) dated 4.1.2002 and the proceedings thereafter; (c) issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby awarding compensation for demolishing/ damaging the existing structure of the petitioner's property measuring 1 bigha 4 bids was situated in K...
Sunil Steels, Smt. Chandra Devi Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC430
1. These appeals are against an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (i) confirming against M/s Sunil Steels [appellant in Appeal No- 2605] a demand of duty of Rs. 2,75,092 (ii) imposing on them a penalty of like amount under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act as also a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 9(2) read with Rules 52A, 198, 209, 209A and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and (iii) imposing penalties of Rs. 10,000 each on Smt. Chandra Devi Nachrani (appellant in Appeal No. 2606) and Shri Anil Kumar Nachrani (appellant in Appeal No. 2607) under Rules 209 and 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944.2. Examined the records and heard both sides. It appears from the record of the case that the above demand of duty has been confirmed against M/s Sunil Steel (proprietorship of Smt. Chandra Devi Nachrani) in respect of excisable goods which were found to have been clandestinely removed. Ld. counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not challenging the ab...
Bharti Export International Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT743TriDel
1. The appellant imported a consignment of 1/2" video cassettes 1500 Nos. The declared value was @ DM 3.20 per cassette. Import was from Germany under Bill of Entry dt. 3-5-01. The relevant invoice from M/s.Importers & Export Hausdorfstr.199, 53129 Bonn. Germany is dt. 24-4-01.Rejecting the invoice price the Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Import), IGI Airport Delhi assessed the Bill of Entry @ US $ 4.50 per pc.Aggrieved by the above, the importer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same under order dt. 21-6-02.The above order is under challenge in this appeal.2. The assessing authority loaded the price and fixed @ 4.50 US $ per pc. on the basis of assessment of a Bill of Entry in the case of M/s.Matchwell Chemical Works. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the above assessment holding that evidence on record would show that the goods were properly examined and that a decision was taken to enhance the declared value on the basis of value of contemporane...
Narang Scientific Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT441TriDel
1. The issue involved in both these appeals, filed by M/s. Narang Scientific Works, is whether the products manufactured by them are classifiable under Heading No. 90.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as instruments and appliances used in medical science as claimed by them or under Heading No. 84.19 as machinery, plant, or laboratory equipment for the treatment of the materials by a process involving a change of temperature.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Serological Water bath, Water Bath Rectangular, High temperature Water Bath, Paraffin wax Bath Incubator Universal Humidity Cabinet, Rotary Shaker, Laminar Flow cabinet vertical Autoclave; that the Revenue has classified all these products under Heading 8419 on the ground that all these products are based on processes which essentially involve a change of temperature. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that Heading 90.18 covers instruments and appliances u...
Beryl Drugs Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC388
1. This order will dispose of all the above captioned three appeals; one filed by the assessee and the two filed by the Department.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The factory premises of the assessee were visited by the Officers of the Central Excise on 7.10.1998 and certain invoices bearing No. 236 to 244 were found in their record through which the goods were removed involving Central Excise Duty of Rs. 67,683.15. On scrutiny of more records, it also revealed that they had removed the samples and also the goods against the private challans involving in all Central Excise Duty of Rs. 1,32,405 and this duty amount also included the duty payable on the goods found short in the stock. Certain other goods were also found unaccounted for in the statutory records and those were also seized.Similarly, some goods which were alleged to be defective were found lying in the factory premises unaccounted and those were also seized.The appellants, however, made the deposit of the entire duty...
Sardar Metal Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT324TriDel
1. Applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties.2. The Commissioner of Central Excise in the impugned order held that M/s. Sardar Metal Industries, M/s. Ram Containers and M/s. Arjun Enterprises are three Units owned by member of one family and all the family members are connived with each other to mis-use the Small Scale Exemption available to Small Scale Units with intend to evade duty. The production of M/s. Ram Containers and M/s. Arjun Enterprises shown as manufactured without aid of power and no Excise duty was paid whereas all the goods were actually manufactured by M/s. Sardar Metal Industries with the aid of power.4. The contention of the appellants is that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principles of natural justice. After receipt of the show cause notice, the appellants made repeated requests to the Revenue for return of un-relied documents on different dates. The contention of the appellants is that ultimately vide...
Anant Raj Industries Ltd. Vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)213; AIR2003Delhi367; 103(2003)DLT169; 2003(67)DRJ566
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. Learned counsel for the Defendant has pressed Preliminary Objection (a) recorded in the Written Statement to the effect that this Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit, since the principal office of the Defendant is not located in Delhi and since the property in respect of which storage charges have been claimed is situated in Mathura. Arguments were addressed in detail by learned counsel for the parties. By this Order, I propose to decide this question as a Preliminary Issue.2. The prayer in the Plaint is for the passing of a Decree for Rs.52,25,210.42/- together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 21per cent per annum and costs. The Defendant had sold its entire unit at Mathura to the Plaintiff company for Rs.30,000,00/- by registered Sale Deed dated 25/4/1994 executed and registered at Delhi. The Plaint states that at that time difficulties in handing over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property were enc...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Raghunath Rath and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)398; 104(2003)DLT581; 2003(70)DRJ351
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as `the Act') claiming that he should be considered as a permanent employee in the eyes of law and be held to be entitled to be paid the difference between the wages, he would have earned as a regular employee and what he got as a daily wager between 1.8.1970 and 31.3.1978, on which date respondent No.1 was regularised. In the written statement filed before the Labour Court by the petitioner, it was denied that respondent No.1 was entitled to the grant of any such difference in wages. The petitioner also submitted before the Labour Court that the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act was not maintainable. The Labour Court by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to submit the detailed chart showing the difference in wages paid and payable to the petitioner as per the p...
Sh. Jaswant Rai Parikh Vs. Dena Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)401; 104(2003)DLT578; 2003(68)DRJ100
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the inquiry into the charges leveled against him vide the charge sheet dated 25th August, 1983. The case set up in the petition was that the petitioner had tendered his resignation on 8.8.1983 and that since no reply to the same was received from the respondent the same was deemed to have been accepted. respondent however, issued a charge sheet dated 25.8.1983 and proposed to hold an enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the issue of this charge sheet on the ground that after the resignation of the petitioner was deemed to have been accepted, the respondent did not have any right to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. After hearing the parties, this Court issued RULE in the writ petition. In so far as the question of acceptance of resignation was concerned, the Court was of the view that even assuming an action was required to be taken against the petitioner all ...
Kamlesh Thukral Vs. Central Government and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(68)DRJ120; 2003(26)PTC423(Del); 2003(2)RAJ371
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Twelve applications were advertised in the Trade Marks Journal dated 1st August, 2002 inviting oppositions. Last date for filing of opposition was 1st December, 2002. Petitioner who is registered owner of trade mark 'Childcare' dispatched 12 oppositions by 'Speed Post' on 25th November, 2002 to the Office of Trade Marks Registry. It is also alleged that Petitioner sent separate letter by registered. AD. Post informing the Registrar of Trade Marks about dispatch of such oppositions. It is further stated that these oppositions were received by the Trade Marks Office on 26th November, 2002. However, on 9th January, 2003 petitioner received back eleven oppositions from the Office of Trade Mark Registry, Mumbai Along with covering letter with the remarks 'Request of TN-5 is time barred'. On 10th January, 2003 twelfth opposition was also received back with same remark. Since, it is the case of the petitioner that oppositions sent by it were duly delivered in the Trade Marks...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »