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.
Cit Vs. Dr. K.C. Verma
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-27-2003
Reported in: [2003]132TAXMAN598(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.CM Nos. 45, 47, 49 & 50/2003For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned.The applications stand disposed of.CM Nos. 44, 46, 48/2003Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stand disposed of.ITA Nos. 98-101/2003These four appeals by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are directed against a common order dated 29-5-2002, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, SMC-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 4379-4381 & 4660 (Delhi) 2000, pertaining to the assessment years 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 e...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jagdish Prashad Soni
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT457TriDel
1. This order will dispose of all the above captioned appeals which have been preferred by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 30-10-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the proceedings against the respondents under Sections 121, 118, 112 & 115(2) of the Customs Act.2. On 15-4-1996, the Customs Officers intercepted one Maruti Van in the area of Jaipur-Bikaner Road which was being driven by Shri Hari Prashad Modi, respondent, and Shri Satya Narain Soni, respondent, was sitting by his side. On search of the car, Indian currency of Rs. 2,73,750/-was recovered and both the respondents could not offer any plausible explanation for the possession of the same. On interrogation, Shri Satya Narain Soni, respondent, admitted that the Indian currency recovered, was the sale proceeds of the foreign origin gold biscuits which he purchased from Ramanand Soni, respondent, and sold to Shri Sampat Lal Soni, respondent. The statements of other respondents were als...
Rathi Super Steel Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(111)LC464Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal itself can be disposed of after allowing the total waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount as the issue involved in the present appeal already stands covered in favour of the appellants by the ratio of the law laid down in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Raja Ram Maize Products 2000 (36) RLT 932. Therefore, I allow the total waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 6,693/- and hear the appeal on merits also with the consent of both the sides.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel products. The only issue involved in the present appeal is, as to whether they are entitled to take modvat credit of the disputed amount on the copper wire which is being used by them for winding electric motors of the rolling mills. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order had disallowed the modvat credit on this item by observing that it is a general purpose item, but in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Raja Ram Maize Products supra, it has been obs...
Lt. Gen. J.S. Dhillon H.U.F. Vs. Continental Profiles Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)284; 104(2003)DLT1018
C.K. Mahajan, J. 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner assails the order dated 28th May, 2001 passed by Shri G.P. Thareja, Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi setting aside the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissing the eviction petition.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of premises bearing Flat No. 302, Mansarover Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The said premises was let out to the respondent vide lease deed dated 21st February, 1978 for a period of three years. Even after the expiry of the said period the respondent continued to retain the said premises. In April, 1986 the rate of rent of premises was Rs. 3,128/- per month. From August, 1989 the respondent without any notice from the petitioner under Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as amended in the year 1988 started sending cheques for payment of rent of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 3,150/- per month. It is alleged ...
T.R. Aluminium Mfg. Co. Vs. P.O. Labour Court Iii (Delhi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 106(2003)DLT52; 2003(69)DRJ319; 2004(1)SLJ196(Delhi); 2003(6)SLR798
Mukul Mudgal, J. 1. This writ petition challenges the award dated 18th June 1999 passed by the Labour Court which directed the reinstatement of the workman/respondent No. 3 with full back wages and continuity of services. The respondent No. 3 had sustained injuries to his right hand and had accordingly sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act which led to the petitioner company availing of insurance benefits by relying on the plea that the respondent No. 3 was its workman. Upon the termination of services consequent to the on job injury led to the industrial dispute leading to the impugned award. 2. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ management, Shri Vinay Sabharwal, is that while highlighting the sustaining of the injury during the employment, the workman himself had claimed before the authority under the Workman's Compensation Act that he was not in a position to work due to the said injury. It is further submitted that in this view of the...
Jindal Aromatics Vs. South Coast Spices Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi8; 2003(2)ARBLR334(Delhi); III(2003)BC268; 105(2003)DLT222; 2003(69)DRJ429
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. This is a suit, filed under Order xxxvII CPC, for recovery of Rs. 27,55,567/- (Rs. twenty seven lacs fifty five thousand five hundred sixty seven only) against the defendant. Before coming to the factual aspects of the averments made in the plaint, it would be appropriate to notice the course of proceedings in the present suit. 2. Summons in the suit were issued in the prescribed pro-forma for a suit under Order xxxvII CPC, requiring the appearance to be entered within 10 days, returnable on 30.7.1996. Defendant did not enter appearance, instead an application (IA. 6727/96), under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a stay of the suit on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement, was filed. Defendant was served on the summons issued in the prescribed form on 8.6.1996 and 11.6.1996. Defendant did not enter appearance, as required, instead, as noted, filed the above application on 22.7.1996. 3. IA. No. 6727/1996, filed under Section 34 of the A...
Jeet Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)552; 2003(70)DRJ21
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioners are the citizens of Afghanistan. On a valid visa issued by the Government of India, they came to India in the year 1992. Despite the expiry of the period to which visa was issued, they continued to remain in India and, accordingly, on 27th August, 1998 they were apprehended from the places where they were working and were served with the order of deportation. By order dated 2nd September, 1998 served separately on petitioners 2 and 3, they were asked to leave India latest by 19th September, 1998 and were further asked not to visit India again. Even before the date mentioned in the notice, namely, 19th September, 1998, the petitioners were deported to Afghanistan on 12th September, 1998. Besides initiating other proceedings, petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 794/1998, in this Court challenging the order of deportation. Still another writ petition being Crl. Writ Petition No. 845/1999 was filed by the petitioners seeking permission to stay in...
Avs International Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)163; 105(2003)DLT207; 2003(69)DRJ636
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Acting under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules, the respondent had given threat for disconnecting the telephone line of the petitioner for non-payment of dues by one Mr. R.L. Moria. On this threat being given the petitioner filed the present petition stating inter alias that the petitioner was not liable to make payment of the amount allegedly due to Mr. R.L. Moria and the respondent did not have any right to disconnect the telephone line of the petitioner for non-payment of dues by Mr. Moria. Certain interim orders were passed by the Court from time to time in this petition. I am now informed that at the instance of Mr. R.L. Moria, the dispute as to whether or not any amount was due from him to the respondent in respect of telephone line for the non-payment of which dues the telephone line of the petitioner was threatened to be disconnected, have been referred to arbitration. I am also informed that the Arbitrator has issued notice to the parties for 8th May, 2...
Shri S.N. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT282; 2003(69)DRJ410
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Petitioner is a practicing advocate having being enrolled in July, 1997. On 19th August, 1987, he applied for being appointed a Notary under the Notary Act, 1952. On receipt of a letter dated 26th August, 1987 from the respondent that the memorial submitted by the petitioner was incomplete, the petitioner is stated to have submitted his memorial on September 01, 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that, though, he came to know that interviews were held on 08th March, 1990 for appointment of Notary, he was not called for interview and appointments were made without giving him an opportunity to appear before the interview board. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Notary, the present petition was filed by the petitioner.2. In the counter affidavit the stand taken by the respondents is that interviews for consideration of the names of the persons who had submitted their memorials for appointment as Notaries was held on 08th ...
Jumax Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)512; 105(2003)DLT932; 2003(89)ECC844; 2003(157)ELT252(Del)
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of Flexible Polyurethane Foam and articles thereof, falling under certain headings of the Central Excise Tariff, at its factory in Ghaziabad. In the manufacturing of polyurethane foam and in the process of conversion of foam into different articles, such as sheets etc., some waste and scrap of foam is generated incidently. The said waste/ scrap is classified in a different heading of the Central Excise Tariff. For the period 1st April, 1990 to 31st March, 1993. The respondent recovered excise duty from the petitioner on the basis of the notifications issued from time to time under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act (in short referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, it was not liable to the payment of the excise duty recovered by the respondents and an application/ claim was, thereforee, filed before the excise authorities for refund of the excise duty alleged to have been paid in excess by the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »