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.
S.S.L. (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC147
1. This is an application under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has been presented against the order dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-11, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), declining the prayer of the applicants/appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants) to set said the order dated 18.2.1998 setting them ex parte and the final order dated 27.8.1998 passed in O.A. 418/97. The appeal has been presented on 23.11.2001, apparently after 45 days prescribed by this section. The respondent-Bank has filed suitable reply opposing this application.2. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.3. As is seen from the impugned order, the appellants/defendants were set exparte on 18.2.1998, and the final order was passed on 27.8.1998.The impugned...
Ex. Ct. Jasbir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)15; 104(2003)DLT5; 2003(68)DRJ588; 2003(3)SLJ428(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners have claimed disability pension. The disability pension, according to the petitioners, was recommended and certified in their favor. However, the claim of disability pension was rejected by the Chief Controller of defense Accounts(Pension) on broadly three counts. First, the disability suffered by the petitioners was not attributable to or aggravated by the military service. Second, the disability was less than 20% by re-assessing the same without taking the opinion of the Medical Board or without any material before the Chief Controller of defense Accounts and, third category of cases are those where the petitioners were getting disability pension but the same has subsequently been discontinued.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the disability pension is governed under Pension Rules of 1961 which are framed under Regulations 48, 173 and 185. There was some dispute with regard to the applicability of Pensi...
Bank Kreiss Ag Vs. Ashok K. Chauhan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi42; III(2003)BC91; [2004]122CompCas906(Delhi); 105(2003)DLT135; 2003(68)DRJ492
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in respect of paras 6A and 17 of the plaint. Relevant facts lie in moderate compass.2. The plaintiff is a body incorporated under the laws of Germany and its registered office is situated at Mainzer Landstrasse 46, 60325 Frankfurt. In the course of its business transactions the plaintiff granted a credit line facility based on the financial state of the said company. The credit line extended to the aforesaid company, the plaintiff accepted a surety-ship Bond up to an amount of DM 12,3030. The surety - ship bond was executed by defendant No. 1 in early 1994. The said company projected a loss of DM 53,500,000.00 instead of surplus. As a result, the plaintiff was forced to face consequences with the said company and took recourse to the guarantee executed by defendant No. 1 by instituting a legal action in the nature of civil suit for the recovery of money. Recourse to the aforesai...
Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Del)326
D.K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the assessed, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal'), has referred under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,00,332 on account of difference in foreign exchange rate is allowable as a revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to extra-shift allowance amounting to Rs. 84,273 in respect of its Calcutta factory ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of : (i) Certificate of original fee; (ii) Stamp on export Bills; (iii) Freight charges; (iv) Insurance charges: (v) Clearing agent commission/Port charges; (vi) Inspection charges; (vii) Octroi; (viii) Service charges (payment to shipping agents); (ix) Port charges; (...
Jay Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN69(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.At the instance of the assessed, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sum of Rs. 1,00,332 on account of difference in foreign exchange rate is allowable as a revenue expenditure ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to extra shift allowance amounting to Rs. 84,273 in respect of its Calcutta Factory ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of :(i) Certificate of original fee;(ii) Stamp on Export Bills;(iii) Freight charges;(iv) Insurance charges;(v) Clearing Agent Commission/Port charges;(vi) Inspection charges;(vii) Octroi;(viii) Service charges (payment to Shopping Agents);(ix) ...
Sheffield Appliances, Polar Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(87)ECC620
1. These appeals are directed against a common order. Accordingly, they were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of under this common order.2. The appellants Polar Fan Industries Ltd., Polar Industries Ltd. and Sheffield Appliances are manufacturers of fan. Their entire production is sold to Polar International Ltd., who in turn sells the fans to dealers. All these appellants are Public Limited Companies. The remaining appellants are Officers of these Limited Companies. The impugned order has held that the manufacturing companies and the marketing company are related persons and therefore, the assessable value for Central Excise duty purposes should be the sale price of the marketing company and not the sale price of the manufacturing company to the marketing companies Proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. However, the assessees paid duty at the time of clearance, taking the sale price to the marketing company as the assessable value. The impugned orde...
Ginny International Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT759TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ginny International Limited is whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 1.3.97 is available to the Appellants in respect of the goods cleared by them to the Domestic Tariff Area.2. We heard Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate and Shri V. Valte, learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned Advocate mentioned that the Appellants have already deposited an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs out of total demand of duty of Rs. 6,27,163. In view of this, we stay the recovery of the remaining amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty. We also take up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both the sides. The Appellants, a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking manufacture cotton yarn, cotton woven fabrics and knitted fabrics which were cleared by them to the DTA availing the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE. The Deputy Commissioner, under the Adjudication Order No.303/99-2000 dated 31.1.2000, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed a ...
P.R.R. Nair Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)307; 106(2003)DLT61; 2003(68)DRJ395; 2004(1)SLJ201(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated June 22, 1988 issued by the respondent No.3 as also the order dated January 5, 1999 passed by the respondent No. 3 appointing an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was appointed as the Registrar of the respondent Institute and he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-Rs.7,300. He was so appointed after his case for such appointment was recommended by the selection committee and his case was approved by the Executive Committee in its meeting held on February 27, 1996. The aforesaid order of appointment was issued by the Joint Director of the Institute. While the petitioner was working as the Registrar of the respondent Institute, the respondent No.3 was directed by an order dated August 1, 1997 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to assume the charge of the Director of the Institut...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Senaro Construction India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 104(2003)DLT441
ORDERCWP 7164/2002:1. The petitioner Corporation is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.4.2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though in terms of the impugned order, the matter has been remanded back for re-determination of rateable value, the Appellate Authority has held that till completion certificate was granted, respondent No. 1 would be liable to pay nil tax as the property was not capable of being occupied. There is no doubt that in terms of Section 129 of the DMC Act, 1957, the right to levy of property tax arises from the date of completion or the date of occupation whichever occurs first. However, Section 346 also requires the completion certificate to be obtained and no person is entitled to occupy building till such completion certificate has been so obtained. In the present case the completion certificate was applied on 6.3.1998 and was granted on 22.3.1999, no reason has been set out either before the Appellate Authority or before this Court as to w...
Nice Rubber Vs. the Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)412; 104(2003)DLT585; 2003(67)DRJ688; (2003)IIILLJ322Del
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. The short point involved in this case is whether the Labour Court after the Award has become enforceable has jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside the Award passed ex-parte against the management. A few facts relevant for deciding this petition are:4. A dispute being raised by the respondent workman the matter was referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Labour Court with the following terms of reference.'Whether the services of Sh. Ram Bahadur Singh have been terminated illegally and or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'5. During the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court the management was proceeded ex-parte and oh 24th August, 1999, the Labour Court passed-an ex-parte Award directing reinstatement of the work...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »