Delhi Court May 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.
D.D. Swami Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT911; 2005(3)SLJ269(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay him full pension with effect from the date he retired from service as Commandant in the Border Security Force.2. The petitioner retired at the age of 55 years after rendering a service of more than 30 years but before completion of 33 years. He was granted pension on pro rata basis. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents praying for grant of full pension and other retiral benefits on the plea that since the age of superannuation up to the rank of Commandant in para-military forces was 55 years, i.e., three years less than officers of the higher rank in the same force and other Central Government employees, who normally retire at the age of 58 years, the requirement of qualifying period of service for being entitled to full pension in his case should be taken as 30 years and not 33 years as in the case of other Central Government employees, etc. In nutshell, the pl...
Orient Steel and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC532
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claimed by the appellants was rejected.2. Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of hot-rolled flat rolled products of iron and steel and were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act. Appellants exercised their option and had opted to pay under Rule 96-ZP(3) of the Rules.Appellants filed the refund claim on the ground that their factory remained closed for certain period, therefore, they are entitled for refund of duty during that period.3. The contention of the revenue is that the appellants had not filed any abatement claim, therefore, the refund claim as such is not maintainable.4. Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE. v. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 1 (SC) : 2000 (117) ELT 273 to submit that once a manufacturer has opted to pay duty as per Rule 96-ZP(3) of Centr...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. D.S.M. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC818
1. These are appeals filed by the Department against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit, for the period September 1997 to March 1998 in respect of the following goods: 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed Modvat credit to the respondents in respect of Welding Electrodes by relying on the Tribunal's decision in Wheels India Ltd, v. CCE, 2000 (122) ELT 875 and the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (77) ECC 1 (SC) : 2001 (45) RLT 739 SC. He has allowed Modvat credit in respect of MS Sheets, etc by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Jawahar Mills (supra). In respect of Copper Winding Wire, the Commissioner has held that, though the item did not qualify as inputs under Rule 57-A, it was eligible capital goods for the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57-Q.3. In the present appeals, the appellant states that welding electrodes did not find place in the Table appended to Rule 57...
Radhey Mohan Singh Vs. Kaushalya Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)522; AIR2003Delhi413; 105(2003)DLT678; 2003(69)DRJ259
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 553/2001. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:-2. The appellant was an employee of respondent No. 1 proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s. Bajaj Plastic. The firm was later converted into M/s. Sunny Plastic. According to the appellant, though he was working efficiently he was not paid legitimate and lawful remuneration. The appellant gave notice to the respondent on 4.12.1989. by which the respondent became furious and abusive towards the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant even incorporating allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 50,000/-. The police took immediate action on the said complaint and in connivance with the respondent filed a challan against the appellant. The appellant was kept in illegal custody ...
Sarla Devi Vs. Sham Bihari Aggarwal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)456; 105(2003)DLT701; 2003(69)DRJ93
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and a decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 15.2.2003.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under. The respondent who was the plaintiff in the trial court filed a suit against the appellant (defendant) for specific performance of the contract with consequential relief. The respondent is engaged in the business of cloth under the name and style of M/s Sham Babu and Sons. The appellant was carrying on the business of cloth in partnership under the name and style of M/s Mangrove International. The appellant purchased goods on 30 days credit facility from the respondent through a broker Lakhan Singh Yadav for a total consideration of Rs. 5,05,765/- The transaction relates to the period 31.3.1998 to 29.5.1998. Admittedly, the appellant failed to adhere to the commitment of payment within the stipulated period despite repeated requests and reminders. Ultimatel...
Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs. Vasudeva Publicity Service and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)207; AIR2003Delhi372; 105(2003)DLT690; 2003(69)DRJ267; (2003)135PLR5; 2003RLR533
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and a decree dated 5.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit No. 280 of 2001. The appellant has filed this appeal Along with the pleadings and the relevant documents.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under. Respondent No. 1 Vasudeva Publicity Service had purchased a Contessa Classic car on hire purchase basis from the appellant for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000. the amount was to be paid in 12 equal monthly Installments of Rs. 26,370 each. The case of the respondents (plaintiffs before the trial court) was that upon payment of the entire amount under the said agreement the respondents had become entitled to the issuance of no dues clearance certificate and for removal of the hypothecation endorsement from the registration book of the car which the appellant failed to do so. It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant had also issued a statement of account show...
A.K. Surekha Vs. the Pradeshiya Investment Corpn. of Up Ltd. and anr. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)512; AIR2003Delhi376; III(2003)BC213; 105(2003)DLT440; 2003(69)DRJ98
Dalveer Bhandari, J 1. In these writ petitions similar question of law arise for adjudication. By this common judgment we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.2895 of 2002, 2904 of 2002 and 2610 of 2003. 2. For the sake of convenience the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 2895 of 2002 are referred to.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the issuance of recovery certificate No.FUP 1366/11235 dated 26th March, 2002 issued by respondent No.1, The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to `PICUP'), filed this petition before this court. According to the recovery certificate the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,41,39,899.56 as on 30.4.2002.4. The petitioner is the promoter of Premier Polyfilms Limited. The said company approached PICUP for grant of financial assistance. The company executed a loan agreement with PICUP. The loan agreement was executed on 25.4.1996 at Lucknow and was signed by the petitioner, A.K.Surekha.5. Clause 57 of the agre...
Sanjiv Sangwan Vs. Sangeeta Sangwan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)554; 105(2003)DLT380; 2003(69)DRJ587
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit for permanent injunction has been filed praying that the Defendant be restrained from removing the children of the parties, namely, Uday Sangwan and Surya Sangwan from Pinegrove School, Kausali, District Solan. During the pendency of the suit is No. 4735/2001 was disposed off on 15.5.2001 after recording that - ' Learned counsel for the Defendant has no objection if the Plaintiff shifts his children from Kausali to Kodaikanal subject to the condition that expenses will be borne by the Plaintiff.' The children are still studying in the Kodaikanal International School. 2. The above orders have been followed in spirit by Shri Sukhdev Singh, Additional District Judge, Delhi in terms of his Order dated 28.1.2003 whereby the Defendant (who is the mother of the children and wife of the Plaintiff) was permitted to meet the children as per the School Regulations. The Plaintiff was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards her traveling and other expenses.3....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. K.C. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Del)231; [2004]266ITR476(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. CM Nos. 45, 47, 49 & 50/2003 For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications stand disposed of. CM Nos. 44, 46 & 48/2003 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.The applications stand disposed of.ITA Nos. 98 to 101/2003 These four appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), are directed against a common order dt. 29th May, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC-I, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 4379-4381 & 4660/Del/2000, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1992-93 to 1995-96.2. Since the issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. Background facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows :The respondent/assessed is a Dermatologist. Since returns of income for the said assessment years were filed by him after the expiry of the due dates, notices under...
Rohit Garg Vs. Delhi Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT588
ORDERMukundakam Sharma, J.1. These petitions were filed by the petitioners praying for winding-up of the respondent company on the ground that it has become commercially insolvent. It was alleged in the petitions that the respondent is indebted to the petitioners and it is unable to re-pay its debt. Similar grounds were taken in all the petitions. When the aforesaid petitions came up for hearing, the respondent took up a plea that the respondent would file an agreed re-payment schedule. After several orders were passed by this Court, the principal amount, as stated in the petitions, was paid by the respondent. 2. An affidavit is filed by the respondent in the present petitions wherein the respondent has stated that payment of interest at the rate of 6% may be ordered by this Court in view of the fact that the respondent is facing financial crunch and difficulty at present. 3. However, my attention is drawn to one of the decisions of this Court in Devinder Kumar jain v. Polar Forgings a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »