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.
Bank of Baroda Employees Union (Regd.) and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT65; 2003(69)DRJ108; (2003)IIILLJ1022Del; 2004(1)SLJ52(Delhi)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Rule.2. The bank of Baroda Employees Union (in short referred to as `the Union') and three of its members, who are also employees of respondent No. 1, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 25.5.2000, issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, declining to make reference of the alleged industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The reference under Sections 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as the Act) was declined to be made to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court by the Government of India, which was the appropriate Government, on the ground that the fixation/ re-fixation of pay of ex-servicemen employed by public sector banks was governed by the instructions issued by the Government and that the management had taken action as per the understanding arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Regional Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996. The order of the Cen...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Styrodync Packaging (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT233TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the respondents availed the benefit of Modvat credit on petroleum products after 1-3-99.Respondents availed the benefit of credit on furnace oil at full rate of 15 per cent. The contention of the revenue in the present appeal is that prior to 1-3-99, the manufacturer can take credit only up to 10 per cent of the duty paid on furnace oil in view of Notification No.5/94. The contention of the revenue is also that as the goods were manufactured prior to 1-3-99, the credit up to 10 per cent can be taken.3. Respondents availed the credit after 1-3-99, therefore, the respondents are entitled to take credit as per rules existed on the date the credit was taken. It is admitted by the revenue that when the credit was taken and there was no restriction to avail the credit.4. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is rejected....
Sarti Ispat Udyog, Shri Sohan Lal Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC146
1. These are five appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.691/2001, dated 4.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. Sarti Ispat Udyog manufacture iron and steel products; that on 8.6.96, Central Excise Officers intercepted a truck No. MP 23 15 7024 carrying CTD Bars weighing 13.390 MT valued at Rs. 1,72,731 at R.T.O. Check Post, Chincola; that driver, Harjinder Singh informed the Officers that the CTD Bars were loaded from the Appellant No. 1's premises; that the Officers seized both the goods and Truck as the goods were removed from the factory premises without payment of duty; that the search of the factory premises of the Appellant No. 1, revealed (ii) Excess of 2.235 MT Rounds, 31.316 MT of Ribbed Bars and 2.804 MT of M.S. angles; (iii) Shortage of 167.616 MT of Modvatable inputs viz., Bloom, cutting of bloom, slabs, billets, ingots, plate cuttings, etc.He, further, submitted that the Commissioner ...
Md. Zabiullah Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC607
1. The appellant in this appeal has questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original dated 29.6.2001 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has ordered the confiscation of the goods (computer parts) and imposed penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on him.2. On 24.4.2000, on receipt of information, the officers of the New Customs House, New Delhi, conducted raid on the residential premises of the appellant located on the first floor T-7, DCM Road, Kishan Ganj, Delhi and effected the recovery of 3 zipper rexin carry bags which contained 928 computer parts of foreign origin. The officers seized all those computer parts and prepared the panchnama in that regard on the spot, as the appellant could not produce documents regarding the legal import and possession of those parts. This seizure was made under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the plea that the parts had been smuggled into India illegally and were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The recovery of the parts was not disput...
K.N. Chhiber and anr. Vs. Sae India Limited and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003IIIAD(Delhi)561; 2003(68)DRJ795
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Shri K.N. Chibber (Plaintiff No.1) and Shri Sat Pal Gulati (Plaintiff No.2) have filed this suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits against SAI (India) Limited, Defendant No.1. In the plaint it has been stated that the Plaintiffs have jointly raised a two and half storyed building on the plot No. 29, Community Commercial Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and that they are joint owners and joint lessees thereof. This property was let out to Defendant No.1 in terms of a Lease Deed dated 3.5.1980. At the time of the filing of the suit the rent payable by Defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as `the Tenant') was Rs.16,940/- per month. For reason which need not be dilated upon the Plaintiffs determined the lease of the tenant by the issuance by issue of a legal Notice dated 6.11.1989. It has been averred that Plaintiff No.2 took a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from Defendant No.2 in February 1980 and by way of security agreed that Defendant No.2 would be ...
Jai Prakash NaraIn Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 3(2003)CCR1; 104(2003)DLT592; 2003(69)DRJ275; 2003(2)JCC983
ORDERB.N. Chaturvedi, J.Crl M.(M) No. 694/2003 & Crl M. 919/2003 :1. Challenge in present petition is directed against an order dated 14.2.2003 of the learned Special Judge declining the application made by the petitioner for release of cash amount of Rs. 2,88,500/- recovered from his premises on a raid by the CBI in connect on with a corruption case registered against Shambhu Prasad, brother of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid cash amount, some jewellery items were also seized in the course of raid by the CBI. The jewellery items were directed to be released to the petitioner by the impugned order. However, the release of cash amount was refused on the ground that in the event of that amount being proved to be ill-gotten wealth, the same would be liable to be forfeited to the State.2. Counsel for the petitioner pleads that the petitioner is to get his daughter married and in that connection he requires the said amount. It is submitted that in case he is, ultimately, required t...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)205; 104(2003)DLT918; 2003(68)DRJ552; (2003)IIILLJ143Del
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1, Delhi in ID case No. 7/1992. The workman/respondent No. 2 was appointed on 19.5.1982 as a Retainer Crew Driver by the Delhi Transport Corporation. He was appointed on monthly rates of pay on temporary basis and was on probation for a period of one year vide order dated 2.2.1983. The respondent No. 2 continued to be on probation when his service was terminated by the petitioner Corporation under Clause 9(a)(i) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulation 1952.2. On 19.7.1991, the respondent No. 2 served a demand notice for reinstatement and subsequently raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government referred the said dispute for adjudication on the following terms of reference:'Whether the termination of services of Shri Kartar Singh is illegal and/or unjustified and, if so, to what relief is ...
Shankar Construction Company Vs. National Building Construction Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Delhi374; 2003(3)ARBLR333(Delhi); 2003(3)RAJ603
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. EA 200/03 is an application by which judgment debtor seeks modification of the order dated 31-1-2003, to adjust the payment of Rs. 43,205/- against a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder, vide orders dated 31st January, 2003. EA 201/2003 is an application by which condensation of delay in filing of the review application is sought. As the matter is being disposed of on merits, EA 201/2003 is allowed.2. Recapitulation of the relevant facts would be necessary to appreciate the contentions sought to be raised by the judgment debtor as it does not flow lucidly from the application.3. Petitioner filed the execution petition seeking enforcement of the award dated 31st March, 2001, in favor of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor-National Building Construction Co. Ltd. The judgment debtor/applicant claims that against a sum of Rs. 6,74,969/- which was due and payable to petitioner/decree holder a sum of Rs. 7,18.174/...
K.M. Construction Vs. J.V.G. Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC53; 2004(74)DRJ483
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the CPC') by the plaintiff praying for passing of a judgment/decree in the sum of Rs.17,91,000/- in respect of dishnoured cheques of the defendant. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15,86,909.69 with interest at 18% per annum. The defendant in the written statement filed a counter claim of Rs.4,48,024.00 with interest.2. The plaintiff's claim in the present application is based on the 5 dishonoured cheques which totalled Rs.9 lacs. The plaintiff/applicant is claiming with interest a sum of Rs.17,91,000/- in this application as it is the case of the plaintiff/applicant that the said amount is an admitted amount on account of the fact that in the written statement liability of the defendant has been admitted and no plea of issuance of cheque by mistake has been made.3. Mr. Luthra, the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator (OL) who now re...
Rajinder Pupneja and anr. Vs. Bishan Das and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(29)PTC38(Del)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Except for defendants 3, 4 and 5 all defendants have been served and in spite of various opportunities granted to them no written statement has been filed. There is no appearance on behalf of any of the defendants today. Served defendants are proceeded ex parte. As far as defendants 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, counsel for the plaintiff states that he proposes to drop the said defendants from the array of defendants. It is ordered accordingly. Let amended memo of parties be filed.2. Since the served defendants have not filed any written statement, on the facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to invoke the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. The present suit is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the registered design of the plaintiff in respect of the footwear. Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn by attention to the certificate of registration of design being No. 185758 dated 7.6.2001. I have perused the photograph of the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »