Delhi Court March 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.
Dy. Comdt., S.C. Parashar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Home Secre ... Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)733; 104(2003)DLT31; 2003(68)DRJ236; 2003(3)SLJ447(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule D.B . 2. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order of imposition of penalty which is to the following effect;' In the light of above and having regard to all other aspects of the case and after consultation with UPSC the President considers that ends of justice would be met in this case if the penalty of (i) 'Reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of 3 years (three) with cumulative effect, including loss of seniority and (ii) recovery of 25% (Twenty five per cent) of the loss incurred by the Govt. to the tune of Rs.74,341.89 i.e. Rs. 18,585.47 (Rupees Eighteen thousand five hundred eighty five and paise forty seven) only on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18(eighteen) equal monthly installments' is imposed on Shri S.C. Parashar, Dy. Comdt. 42, Bn. CRPF. The President hereby orders accordingly.'3. Mr. Sharma counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a case where the inquiry officer has not taken into consider...
Suraj Prakash Chopra Raj Kumar Vs. Baij Nath Dhawan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)705; 103(2003)DLT645; 2003(69)DRJ431
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 39 of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) is filed challenging an order of Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) whereby tenant's appeal assailing an order of the Additional Rent Controller (for short the Controller) passed on the ground of eviction under Clause (j) of Section 14(1) of the Act was decided.2. The respondent Baij Nath Dhawan (hereinafter the landlord) sought eviction of his tenant Suraj Parkash Chopra Raj Kumar (hereinafter the tenant) from a portion of the premises No. G-24, NDSE Part-I, New Delhi under Clauses (b), (c) and (j) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The Controller disallowed eviction of the tenant under Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The said order is not under challenge. But under Clause (j) of Section 14(1) the Controller upheld the contention of the landlord that substantial damage has been caused to the tenancy premises. He accordingly directed the tenant to ...
Subhash Chand JaIn Vs. Regional Manager, Pnb and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT413b; 2003(71)DRJ505; [2003(97)FLR1030]; (2003)IIILLJ396Del; 2003(3)SLJ457(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J.Rule.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.2. Petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the erstwhile Hindustan Bank, which later merged with the Punjab National Bank. In 1983, an incident of forgery and cheating had taken place in the Bank for which Bank had lodged a complaint with the police. After investigating the matter, the police registered an FIR against various officials of the Bank including the petitioner. An FIR was registered under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC The petitioner was suspended from service and departmental inquiry was also initiated against him. On the basis of the report given by the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. This order was challenged by filing a departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner then raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudicati...
Shyam Kishore and anr. Vs. Roop Saree Kendra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)632; 105(2003)DLT422; 2003(69)DRJ544
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Controversy centres around two fold propositions of law viz.(a) Whether suit by a landlord for damages or mesne profits without accompaniment of a suit for possession is barred by the provisions of Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure ?(b) Whether suit for mesne profits is maintainable in respect of a tenant whose tenancy is governed by the provision of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956) pursuant to notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy ?2. These propositions have arisen from the following preliminary issue set for determination:'Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form in view of provisions of Section 19 of the Slum Areas(Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956?' 3. Relevant facts lie in short compass:-'Defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendants No.2 to 8 are its partners. Defendant No. 2 took on rent from the plaintiffs the first floor consisting of a big hall and a op...
Cce Vs. Genus Overseas Electronics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2002)LC153Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue raised in this reference is as to what constitutes "payment" of Central Excise Duty by an assessee, i.e., whether the deposit of Cheque towards payment of duty in the authorized Bank satisfies the requirement or whether the requirement is satisfied only when the Cheque is cleared and the amount deposited to the Government Account. Provisions of Rule 8, 49 and 173 G of Central Excise Rules 1944 have been referred to in this case.2. Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules which relates to "manner of payment on duty" requires that duty on goods removed from the factory or warehouse during the first fortnight of the month shall be paid by 20th of that month and the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during a month shall be paid by the 5th day of the following month. In the context of this requirement, dispute arose as to whether deposit of Cheque by the dates indicated in the Rule was sufficient or whether the Cheques so deposited should have been cleared and ...
Mira Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(153)ELT686TriDel
1. Vide Order dated 22-8-2002 the Division Bench of the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal has referred the following questions for being considered by the Larger Bench of more than 5 Members :- (i) In a case where no particular case law is cited before the Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision, whether the argument that the case law was not taken note of, would form the ground for plea of an error apparent on the face of the record? (ii) Where a judgment, is delivered taking into account available case law, and where there is a later judgment by a superior forum, whether such decision subsequently given would enable the plea of mistake to be raised and (iii) Whether Bench of the Tribunal situated in Mumbai would be governed by the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court or whether it would be bound by a decision given by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.Before we answer the questions referred above, we may point out that it is not proper for a Division Bench t...
Jaypee Rewa Plant Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC503
1. The issue referred to us is whether CENVAT credit was admissible under Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules 1944 to Welding Electrodes and gases (Oxygen & dissolved Acetylene) which were used by the appellants during April to September 2000 for repairs and maintenance of machines, equipments, structurals etc. in their factory. There are conflicting decisions on similar issue by co-ordinate 2-Member Benches of this Tribunal as noted in the referral order, The East Zonal Bench, in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1991 (55) ELT 415, disallowed MODVAT credit to the assessee under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of Oxygen gas and Dissolved Acetylene gas which were used for repairs of their Cement manufacturing plant. It was held that the said gases were not eligible 'inputs' as they were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of cement (final product). In the case of K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. v. CCE, 2000 (121) ELT 843, a co-ordinate Bench at New Delhi d...
Sutlej Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Delhi)80
1. These two appeals by the assessee relate to the asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96. Since both the appeals rotate around common issue, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The solitary effective ground projects the grievance of the assessee as under : "The CIT(A) erred on the facts of the case and in law in not allowing interest under Section 244A/other relevant provisions of the IT Act on the amount of self-assessment tax paid, which became refundable under Section 143(3)/250 as per provisions of IT Act from the date of payment of such tax." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee became entitled to substantial refund on account of the appellate order.Refund also included certain amounts which had been paid as self-assessment tax. At the time of giving effect to the appellate order, the learned AO granted the interest on the refund of self-assessment tax from 1st April, 1997 to June, 1997 because ...
Wind Power Limited Vs. Goyal Mg Gases Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IIAD(Delhi)585; 2003(1)ARBLR667(Delhi); 103(2003)DLT611; 2003(2)RAJ243
R.C. Jain, J. 1. The respondent M/s. Goyal MG Gases Limited has filed this application under Section 151 CPC praying for a direction on the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to start paying to the respondent the sums standing in its account after deducting a sum of Rs.2,67,44,336/-.2. The relevant facts to be noticed for the disposal of the present application are that the respondent purchased a wind mill Project from the petitioner on turnkey basis by a purchase order dated 1st February, 1996. The wind mill was to generate electricity and the same was to be purchased by the TNEB and for that purpose TNEB and the respondent entered into a power purchase agreement dated 27th March, 1996. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent as the project was not as per the contract and generation of electricity was much low. On a petition, being AA No. 133/96, filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator and interim relief, this Court vide order dated 30th April, 1997 m...
Shri A.P. JaIn Vs. Faridabad Metal Udyog (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)624; [2005]123CompCas785(Delhi); 104(2003)DLT909; 2003(71)DRJ523; [2004]50SCL268(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This company appeal has been filed against the order dated 27th July, 1998 by which while holding other pleas in favor of the appellant, the Company Law Board has dismissed the petition on the ground of laches of seven years and the indulgence in forum shopping by the appellant. 2. The dispute which relates to the present appeal originated on a petition filed in this Court under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act in the year 1990 by the appellant herein A.P. Jain alleging oppression and mismanagement which was numbered as CP 174/1990. The matter remained pending in this Court and on 10th September, 1996, a prayer was made on account of the change of jurisdiction pursuant to the 1988 amendment in the Companies Act which came into force with effect from 31.5.91. By the said amendment, the petitions under Sections 397 and 398 relating to oppression and mismanagement under Chapter VI were required to be heard by the Company Law Board. The proceedings in this Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »