Delhi Court April 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. P.K. Sarawgi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT117TriDel
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby the proceedings initiated against the respondents in respect of misdeclaration of imported goods were dropped.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Hindustan Overseas and M/s. B.R. Metal made import of copper wire bars. The allegation against the importers is that they had misdeclared the goods in respect of weight. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalty.3. The Adjudicating Authority after taking into consideration the amendment in IGM which was allowed by the customs authorities held that there was no misdeclaration on the part of the respondents.4. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents attempted to misdeclare the weight of the copper wire bars and therefore are liable for penal action. "It is the case of the noticee, on the other hand, that there is no doubt that the IGM did not contain the correct weight of the impu...
Poysha Oxygen (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)91ITD616(Delhi)
1. The main issue arising out of this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 30 lacs on account of interest on loan given to M/s Ganga Automobiles Ltd. (In short GAL).2. The assessee declared income of Rs. 29,37,500 from dividend, Rs. 7,74,000 from rent of cylinders and Rs. 3,670 as other income. It was noticed by the AO that assessee had not declared interest income on loan of Rs. 1 crore advanced to M/s GAL. It was also found that assessee had filed arbitration suit against the said company for the recovery of the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 30 per cent p.a.According to the AO, the interest income had accrued to the assessee and, therefore, the sum of Rs. 30 lacs was added to the total income of the assessee.3. The matter was carried before the CIT(A) before whom it was submitted that originally the sum of Rs. 1 crore was given vide agreement dt. 7th Oct., 1995, for a period of 120 days. Thereafter, it was extended from time to time. The last agreement was made on 14th Feb...
indo Gulf Industries Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Industries Development Corpn. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)254; 104(2003)DLT529; 2003(68)DRJ416
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In respect of this Suit for the grant of a declaration and mandatory injunction and for the recovery of compensation of Rs. 81,40,000/-, two Preliminary Objections have been raised which I propose to dispose off by these Orders. The first assault to the consideration of the Suit is that this Court ought not to exercise territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. The second challenge is that the Suit is barred by limitation and, thereforee, deserves to be dismissed. 2. The contention of Mr. P.N. Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff, is that these Preliminary Objections are what he terms in his inimitable style as 'defense oriented', in that the averments in the Written Statement would have to be necessarily considered in some detail before the question can be decided. He rightly contends that at this stage of the proceedings the Plaint should primarily be looked at. He has contended that on a perusal of paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Plaint it will be palpabl...
Chander Mohan and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)232; 104(2003)DLT643; 2003(68)DRJ616
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The grievance of the residents of Panch Shila Park South that respondent No. 1 - DDA was constructing an office complex on the land of the society has given rise to the present writ petition. 2.The writ petition was originally filed by five petitioners, who are all residents of Panch Shila Park South impleading the Panch Shila Cooperative House Building Society Limited as respondent No. 2, but the said society was subsequently transposed as petitioner No. 6 in terms of the Order dated 24.03.1999. 3.A Memorandum of Agreement was executed by the President of India and the petitioner No. 6 society on 19.01.1963 granted license to the society to enter upon the land for the purposes of making services and taking measures as also for preparing a lay-out plan for development of residential plots in lieu of the consideration deposited by the society of Rs.32,37,960/- as also the additional sums further deposited subsequently. It is further provided in the said Agreeme...
Kailash Engineers Vs. Auto Pins (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(67)DRJ782
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6.8.1999 passed bylearned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner Under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') wasdismissed as statutory notice was not given with 15 days from the dishonour ofcheque.2. Briefly stated, facts leading to this revision are that on 6.3.1999 petitioner filed complaint Under Section 138, 141 and 142 of the Act against the respondent alleging therein that respondent had purchased some material i.e. 10 pairs of main bearing on 18.12.1998 for which complainant raised its bill No. 647 dated 18.12.1998 amounting to Rs. 34,320/-. Respondent issued post dated cheque on 18.12.1998 bearing No. 379392 dated 28.12.1998 for Rs. 34,320/- against the said purchase. The cheque was presented for encashment on 29.12.1998 but the same was dishonoured by Banker's Memo dated 2.1.1999. The petitioner wrote a demand latter dated 2.1.199...
indoor Table Tennis Trust and ors. Vs. Shri Kapil Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi273; II(2003)BC439; 104(2003)DLT672; 2003(68)DRJ357
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. In this execution application filed by a decree holder a preliminary plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been raised by the Garnishee Bank, namely, Ghaziabad Nagariya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ghaziabad.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:(i)The petitioner is the original decree holder against the judgment debtor Kapil Khanna. The decree dated 12th May 1998 was not appealed against and the amount awarded as per the decree is Rs.27,87,226.08 together with costs assessed at Rs.29.730./05. The decree is sought to be executed against the judgment-debtor and inter alias an order of attachment of property bearing No. C 89, NDSE Part II, New Delhi has been sought. (ii)The decree is resisted by the Garnishee bank and the contention raised is that since the Garnishee Bank and the situs of the debt are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. It was, inter alia, also contended...
Eb Pocket Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)285; 104(2003)DLT166; 2003(68)DRJ611
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioners are the Welfare Association and residents of EA, EB and EC Pockets of the SFS Flats, Rajouri Garden Extn. constructed and developed by respondent No. 1.2. The SFS scheme was published in April, 1981 by respondent No. 1. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 2 and Clause 17(i) which are as under:'2. The allotment under the scheme will be on the terms and conditions contained in this Brochure and the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. 17. General (i) The DDA reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of flats and scooter garages depending upon the actual feasibility at site prior or during the course of construction. Similarly, the DDA also reserves the right to change the facilities and specifications shown in the various plans and the text. There may also be some variations in the sizes of theindividual rooms and overall covered area as per actual construction. The various pl...
Vijay Laxmi and anr. Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)478; 104(2003)DLT465; 2003(68)DRJ476; 2003(1)JCC564
ORDERCrl M. No. 625/2003 :1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of Mrs. Vijay Laxmi-appellant No. 1 (wife of Jagat Narain-appellant No. 2) and Jagat Narain-appellant No. 2.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that there are four dying declarations in this case. Two dying declarations were made by the deceased before the doctor. In both the dying declarations, there is no reference of both the appellants, namely Mrs. Vijay Laxmi and Jagat Narain.3. Mr. Thakur further submitted that even in the dying declaration made before the Investigating Officer, name of Mrs. Vijay Laxmi is also not mentioned. In the said dying declaration it is mentioned that Jagat Prasad was seen by deceased, during the incident. In the dying declaration made by deceased before the Executive Magistrate names of Mrs. Vijay Laxmi and Jagat Narain have been mentioned. The deceased further stated that she could see only a man with Pajama, who had poured kerosene oil on her. She further stat...
Master Pulkit Vs. Smt. Kamlesh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)541; 105(2003)DLT313; 2003(69)DRJ672
Vikramajit Sen, J. Suit No. 1763/98 & is No. 7272/98, 3911/03, 1479/02, 11158/011. This Suit for partition and rendition of accounts has been filed on behalf of Master Pulkit through his mother and natural guardian, Smt. Neeta, wife of Shri Satish Kumar who has been imp leaded as Defendant No. 10. In the Plaint it has been stated that late Shri Bodh Raj Bhola, the great grandfather of the Plaintiff, died on 1.6.1995 at Delhi. In paragraph 2 of the Plaint it has been averred that the 'deceased left behind in Pakistan lot of housing accommodation and accordingly as per law, as was prevalent then, filed various claims with the Ministry of Rehabilitation and the said Ministry of Rehabilitation accepted the claims of the deceased in full. The claims were utilised for the purchase of property at Kalkaji'. It is the case of the Plaintiff that from the sale of the Kalkaji house the suit property, bearing No. 8/6, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi has been purchased. Learned counsel for Defendant N...
Amarjeet Singh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 3(2003)CCR57; 105(2003)DLT27; II(2003)DMC108; 2003(2)JCC1161; 2003RLR543
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for taking action against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the 'Act').2. Briefly stated, facts leading to this petition are that FIR No. 1265/1998, under Section 406, IPC was lodged by respondent No. 7 herein at Police Station defense Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner who was cited as accused in the case, applied for anticipatory bail. Arguments on the said application were heard on 7.3.2000. A perusal of order dated 7.3.2000 reveals that on behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the complainant and her husband who is younger brother of the petitioner had stayed with the petitioner till 1997 and thereafter separated and no Stridhan articles remained with the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated under Section 406, IPC. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned P.P....
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »