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.
Shri A.K. Goenka Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 105(2003)DLT310
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. One M/s. Zapchast Exports appear to have imported certain stock of spare parts of Russian tractors in India. Such stock was stored in a bonded warehouse for meeting 'on the shelf requirements' of customers against customers own import license as per provisions of the Import Trade Control Act. The goods were alleged to have been offered to the petitioner at a discount to the extent of 80% of the C.I.F. Value of the importers. Petitioner purchased the goods against Invoice No. 190 and 211 and paid customs duty of Rs. 20,818.63 paise against the same. The goods were purchased by the petitioner on 26.9.1978. In or about 1980-1981, the petitioner appears to have filed application for refund of excess customs duty alleged to have been recovered by the respondent. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was dismissed by the Collector of Customs and the revision petition fil...
Lt. Col. S.K. Kapoor [Retd] and ors. Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2003IVAD(Delhi)605; 105(2003)DLT317; 2003(70)DRJ53
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have common factual background and raise identical legal issues. They were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts of CWP. No. 497 are noted in detail.2. For last number of years sale of liquor in Delhi was controlled through Government Agencies like Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. (DTTDC); Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (DSCSC); Delhi Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (DCCWS); and Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIDC). The Government of NCT of Delhi took a decision in the year 2002 to liberalise this policy and decided to give licenses in the private sector also i.e to the general public for opening of liquor vends. As a squatter thereto on 20.7.2002 Government of NCT of Delhi through its Department of Excise invited applications from the general public for grant of L-52 license for opening liquor vends in Revenue Dist...
Shri Jai KrishIn Amar Vs. K.M. Capital Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC280; [2004]118CompCas735(Delhi); 2003(70)DRJ180
Vikramajit Sen, J. IA 6013/20031. This application has been filed on 22.5.2003, i.e., one day previous to today's hearing, praying for the condensation of delay in filing is No. 9740/2002 in which application provisions of Order xxxvII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been invoked.2. For this application to merit consideration, it ought necessarily to have been filed along with is No. 9740/2002. Having not been so filed it is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose. The application deserves dismissal on this short ground. 3. Without prejudice to the above no the Explanationn has been given for the inordinate delay in its filing which is sought to be condoned. Dismissed.IA 9740/20024. Since the application has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and since it has not been accompanied by an application seeking the condensation of delay; it deserves dismissal for the reason that it has been preferred beyond limitation. Be that as it m...
Deluxe Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)181; 105(2003)DLT829; 2003(70)DRJ274
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of sum of Rs. 15,70,081.50 with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum on account of earnest money amounting to Rs. 10,51,250/- forfeited by the defendant and interest on the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs retained by the defendant illegally from 15.3.82 to November 1982.2. In brief the facts of the case are that the defendant DDA published an advertisement in the newspaper notifying that the auction would be conducted on 22.12.81 with respect to various plots namely 6 & 7, 4 & 5 etc. in local shopping Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. With respects to plots No. 4 and 5, the area was s pecified as 135 sq. meter and total floor area was mentioned as 787.50 sq. meters with number of storeys mentioned as 'six plus basement'.3. The plaintiff company submitted bid forms and gave bid of Rs. 42,05,000/-. The said bid was accepted by the defendant DDA. The plaintiff company deposited the earnest money of ...
Goyal Gramodyog Sansthan and ors. Vs. Seth Brothers and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2003(70)DRJ393; 2003(27)PTC142(Del)
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order shall dispose of above named FAO 331 of 2002 filed against granting injunction as well as a Civil Revision Petition No. 5420/2002 against rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'CPC) moved by defendants No. 1 to 3 petitioners, namely, Goyal Gramudyog Sansthan, Goyal Brothers and 'Goyal Herbals (P) Ltd. Both the matters are being taken together for they involve some common question of law and facts. 2. Brief facts giving an occasion to this appeal and Civil Revision are as follows: Plaintiff/respondent No. 1, M/s. Seth Brothers, filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining infringement of the trade mark, copyright, passing off and rendition of accounts in respect of one of its ayurvedic medicine/churns 'KAYAM CHURAN' used for curing chronic constipation, headache and hyper acidity. The plaintiff/respondent claimed that they adopted and put to use trademark 'KAYAM' in the year 1977 and they are...
Man Mohan Vaid Vs. Meena Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT195; II(2003)DMC723
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This appeal is result of an unusual situation in the sense that while respondent wife, Meena Kumari, sought divorce from the respondent Man Mohan Vaid on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short), and divorce decree was granted in her favor the appellant Man Mohan Vaid seeks a declaration to the effect that no valid marriage has ever taken place, and as such question of divorce would not arise. Man Mohan vaid appellant by this appeal intends to seek relief in criminal appeal.2. According to Smt. Meena Kumari, she was married to Shri Man Mohan Vaid, the respondent according to Hindu-Sikh rites and ceremonies at Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Shankar Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi, on 25.11.1990. It was an outcome of a prolonged love affair for both awaited approval of their respective parents. But ultimately they married against the wishes of their parents, but with the approval of...
Sterling Tools Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)261
ORDERR.M. Mehta, V.P.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the assessing officer in block assessment raising as many as 13 effective grounds which run as under :'1. The learned Dy. CIT has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs. 12,13,000 on account of the alleged unaccounted investment in purchase of property at No. 54-A, DLF Industrial Estate, Phase-I, Faridabad, on wholly illegal, erroneous and untenable ground.2. The learned Dy. CIT has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs. 10,86,000 on account of alleged unaccounted investment in purchase of property at No. 4, DLF Industrial Estate, Phase-I, , Faridabad, on wholly illegal, erroneous and untenable grounds.3(a) The learned Dy. CIT has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rs, 10,71,000 as undisclosed income on account of the alleged under valuation of closing stock as on 31-...
Paras Ship Breakers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC648
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Paras Ship Breakers Ltd., relates to the determination of Annual Capacity of Production of their induction furnace under Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.2. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Advocate, mentioned that Appellants manufacture, inter alia, M.S. Ingots of non-alloy steel; that they purchased one Induction Furnace having capacity of 8 MTs from M/s.Inductotherm (India) Ltd. under invoice dated 29.1.1996; that as the furnace was not performing properly the matter was discussed with the supplier who under letter dated 27.1.97 informed that the problem was due to sanctioned power load inasmuch as the furnace required 3000 kW power whereas the Power sanctioned to them was less and advised the Appellants to decrease the furnace capacity to 4 to 4.5 MT by raising up the bottom to match the power of 1900 kVA; that they assigned the said work to Mr. B.K. Shukla, Proprietor of M/s. Furcon Consultancy Services, Rajkot...
Raj Cement Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(88)ECC594
1. The appellants are manufacturers of clinker and cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The appeal is against the denial, by the lower appellate authority, of modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1046,335 taken by the appellants during January to April 1998 under Rule 57-Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.Barring an amount of Rs. 2901, the entire credit was denied on the ground that the goods in respect of which the credit was taken were not eligible capital goods under Rule 57-Q. The credit of Rs. 2901 was denied on the ground that the same was taken on the strength of invalid documents. The break-up of the credit in question is given below: 2. Heard both the sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the credit taken on hand tools was admissible to the appellants as the hand tools, which were used for setting and controlling the various machinery in their factory, were covered by the definition of "capital goods'" under Rule 5...
AllwIn Forgings Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)(89)ECC802
1. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the correctness of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19.9.2002 vide which the Commissioner had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 22,84,468 with equal amount of penalty payable and interest against them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods such as spanners, wrecking bars, etc. On the scrutiny of their RT-12 return during the quarters ending December 99 and March 2000, it revealed that they had cleared excisable goods valued at Rs. 1,42,77,923 for export without following the export procedure as detailed in Rules 13, 14 and Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they did not execute the bond in proper form, failed to file AR-4 application before the clearances for the export and had not even submitted AR-4 for proof of export duly endorsed by the Customs authorities. They were accordingly issued show cause notice for the recovery of the above referred duty amount. Penalty was also proposed in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »