Delhi Court July 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.
Mr. K.S. Juneja and anr. Vs. Embassy of Uruguay in India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)433; 106(2003)DLT93; 2003(70)DRJ563
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition against the order dated 22.5.2003 passed by the learned ASJ whereby the application of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short `Act' ) on the ground that complainant did not enclose the list of witnesses and as such no process could be issued, was dismissed. Section 204(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no summons or warrants shall be issued against the accused until a list of prosecution witnesses has ben filed.2. Admittedly the list of witnesses was not filed by the complaint when the summons were issued by the Magistrate. However, subsequently the case was transferred to the learned ASJ for trial. The learned ASJ did not consider this ground sufficient to recall order of summoning or dropping the proceedings by placing reliance upon the decision in Devender Kumar Jain and another Vs . State : 38(1989)DLT213 wherein a view was taken that unless a preju...
Khanna Hotel P. Ltd. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct) of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ180
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Every law must perish if its enforceability is neither ensured hot made feasible by the concerned authorities. Otherwise remedy proves worst than the disease or peril. Same is the state of law relating to prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act i.e. bouncing of cheques issued towards whole or part of the liability at least in the metropolis of Delhi.2. This law provides penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. Unamended law provided not only a cumbersome procedure but punishment was also inadequate. Courts were unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner. Keeping in view the large number of cases pending in various Courts in the country, the legislature by enacting Section 143 of the Act, prescribed for ...
Eicher Tractors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT606TriDel
1. The appellants manufactures IC Engine. At the time of selling the IC Engines to their dealers, the appellant takes a security deposit at the rate Rs. 300/- per unit of the goods from their dealers. This deposit is returned to them on production of vouchers containing the certificate of the ultimate buyer that the IC engine in question has been installed by the dealer. Thus, the deposit is to ensure that the dealer carries out installation work properly.2. The impugned order has held that the deposit at the rate of Rs. 300/-should also form part of the assessable value of IC engine.3. It is the contention of the appellant that Rs. 300/- is only a security deposit for installation and since, it is refunded on completion of installation work, it does not constitute the price of IC engine to form part of the transaction value. During the hearing of the case, the learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant submitted that this issue remains decided in favour of the appellant vide Fina...
Hari Chand Shri Gopal, Gopal Zarda Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC75
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby the duty was confirmed in respect of 'Kimam' manufactured by them and penalties were imposed. The goods which were taken into possession were also confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine.2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturer of Kimam and were clearing the same without payment of duty to their other Units where it was used in the manufacture of Branded Chewing Tobacco.The Branded Chewing Tobacco was cleared on payment of duty. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants for demand of duty in respect of Kimam and for imposing penalties and for confiscation of the seized Kimam.3. The adjudication authority confirmed the demands and imposed the penalties. The seized goods were also confiscated.4. The appellants filed appeals before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No.846-851/99-D dated 1.10.99...
Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT828TriDel
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the adjudication order where the penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- each was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri A.K. Jain, Proprietor of M/s.Meerut Exim made import of Ball Bearings and got the same cleared by mis-declaring the value and quantity to evade customs duty. The imported Ball Bearings were stored in the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim.The Ball Bearings were recovered from the premises of M/s. Dooab Exim.Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, appellant was also present there who was sorting out the Ball Bearings. A show cause notice was issued to the present appellant as well as to other notices on the ground that the Ball Bearings were got cleared by misdeclaring the value and quantity of the Ball Bearings and Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta and Shri Trilok Nath Mittal to sell the Ball Bearings in the local market on the commission basis. Both the appellants were to get Rs. 1.50 P each Bearing sold in the l...
Auto Hire Purchase Finance Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT81TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity of the impugned order-in-original, dated 16-10-2001 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has appropriated the security amount of Rs. 50,000/- of the appellants which they furnished for the provisional release of the truck in question.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the truck in question was involved in the illegal import of any contraband i.e. medicinal powder as alleged by the Department, and that even otherwise no notice before ordering the confiscation of the truck was served on the appellants. The learned Counsel has further contended that the appellants are only financer of the truck in question and that the real owner is another person.Therefore, any security furnished by them for the release of the truck could not be legally even appropriated under the law, especially when they were never called upon to produce the truck after the passing of the adjudica...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Iis Infotech Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)174
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) on following grounds : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the exemption under Sections 10A and 10B. (a) despite the fact that the assessee-company had been formed on the amalgamation of two existing business entities and therefore, was not eligible for exemption under Sections 10A and 10B in view of the specific provisions contained in Sections 10A(2)(ii) and 10B(2)(ii); (b) despite the fact that the assets being used by the assessee-company were old assets which were being previously used by the erstwhile amalgamating companies which were then subsequently transferred to the assessee-company, and therefore, the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Sections 10A and 10B in view of the specific provisions contained in Sections 10A(2)(iii) and 10B(2)(iii)." 2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the a...
Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Shri Hari Parshad (Deceased) Through Lrs
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)405; 106(2003)DLT496; 2003(69)DRJ660
Mahmood Ali Khan, J.1. Arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been heard ex-parte for final disposal of the revision petition. 2. This petition is filed under sub-section (8) of Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) by the petitioner landlady assailing an order of Additional Rent Controller dated 29th April 1999 whereby he had dismissed an eviction petition filed by her for recovery of possession of the premises from the respondent tenant under clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act. 3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner Smt.Raj Kumari filed a petition on 7th August 1984 for eviction of a tenant Hari Parshad (who has since died and is now represented by the legal representatives who are respondents) from one room in property no. E/4 Hazara Park, Shiv Puri, Delhi under clause (e) of Section 14(1) read with Section 25B of the Act. In the petition her allegation is that she had purchased this property from the previous owner Ganpat Rai under an Agreeme...
Shri A.B.A. Ghani Khan Chowdhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)84; 105(2003)DLT741; 2003(70)DRJ1
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner Shri A.B.A. Ghani Khan Chaudhary, a former Cabinet Minister and a Member of Parliament has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash impugned demand vide letter No. 186-EE(Comm)/LOPH dated 29th March, 2001 (Annexure P-1) in the sum of Rs. 22,39,226.00 being the amount of electricity and water charges outstanding in respect of premises at 12, Akbar Road in his occupation. Petitioner also seeks quashing of letter No. 124 dated 21st March, 2000 (Annexure P-2) by which the petitioner was notified that on his failure to make the payment in four Installments, as requested by the petitioner, NDMC was constrained to resort to an action of disconnection of electric/water supply without any further notice. A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to restore the supply of water and electricity with a direction that petitioner be made to pay only for the cost of actual consumption.2. The above writ petition had come up before the Court on 24th April, ...
Dinesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)183; 105(2003)DLT739; (2003)135PLR7
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner had applied for the sanction of 20 H.P. Electricity connected load in or about 1990. Subsequently, on voluntary declarations made by the Petitioner this was increased to 60 H.P. Admittedly regularisation charges have been levied and collected from the Petitioner from time to time. With effect from 08th May, 2001 misuse charges have been imposed on the Petitioner and these demands have been impugned in the present petition.2. Mr.Nandrajog, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has relied on Entry 3.1 of the Tariff Schedule for the year 2001-2002 which reads as follows:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Normative'Category Minimum Demand Energy Limit ChargesCharges Charges Charges (KWH/(%)(Rs./KW/ (Rs./KVA (Paise/month)month) month) Kwh----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----3.1 Small IndustrialPowe...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »