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.
Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd. Vs. A.S. Impex Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC49; (2004)1CompLJ412(Del); 105(2003)DLT762; 2003(69)DRJ654; (2003)135PLR35; [2004]4SCL590(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The petitioner has filed the present company petition praying for orders of winding up of the respondent company on the ground that the respondent company is indebted to the petitioner and that it is unable to pay its debts and that it has become commercially insolvent.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent purchased Cathode Ray, Tubes (picture tubes for TV sets) from the petitioner. Against the supplies made by the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,22,45,996.27p was due and payable by the respondent as per the reconciled balance as on 17.3.2000. The respondent gave a balance confirmation vide confirmation note dated 17.3.2000 and the said confirmation dated 17.3.2000 is placed with the documents filed by the petitioner. thereforee, in terms of the balance confirmation note given by the respondent debt to the aforesaid extent is admitted by the respondent.3. After the respondent gave the confirmation note dated 17.3.2000, the petitioner supplie...
Dir. M/O Information and Broadcasting Vs. Sopali
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)573; 106(2003)DLT194; 2003(71)DRJ431; 2004(1)SLJ470(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that rejoinder is not necessary to be filed in the present case and the petition be heard on the existing pleadings.2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. This writ petition filed by the Director, Ministry of I&B; challenges the Award dated 25th May, 2000, passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent No.1 had challenged in the Industrial Tribunal the termination of his services by the petitioner on 7th June, 1987. The respondent No.1 relied upon a office memorandum No.49/14/77-Estt dated 21st March, 1979 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs mandating regularization of services of a casual employee who had completed 240 days of work. He had further averred that being a temporary employee and having put in 240 days of service, in illegally terminating his service, the principle of last come first go was not followed as his juniors were retained in service. The petitioner ...
Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)523; 108(2003)DLT291
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents to release the entire subsidy/confessional amount to the petitioner company on the basis of sales of fertilizers made to registered dealers in the state of Bihar. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ, order or direction directing the respondents 5 & 6 (State of Bihar and Director of Agriculture, State of Bihar) to complete the sales certification process in respect of fertilizer sales made by the petitioner company in the state of Bihar and to submit Proforma-B to the respondent No. 1 (Union of India) strictly within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the subsidy claims from the petitioner company in Proforma-A with regard to subsidy claims lodged for the period 1.11.2001 onwards. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction directing the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner company a sum of Rs. 75.2...
L.P. Desai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT334; 2003(71)DRJ553; 2004(92)ECC109; 2004(165)ELT151(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner, Sh. L.P. Desai, was a director in Shri Ambuja Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company'). The said company had applied for and was granted license by Respondent No. 4 under the Duty Exemption Scheme whereunder it was permitted to import orthoxylene against the obligation to export phallic anhydride.2. Orthoxylene was imported by the said company and it used the same in the manufacture of phallic anhydride. It is alleged that due to circumstances and reasons beyond its control, the said company could not meet its export obligations in respect of phallic anhydride, as a result of which a show cause notice was issued to the said company on 07.11.1994 which culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 27.07.1995/07.08.1995 passed by the Additional Director General (Foreign Trade), New Delhi. By virtue of this Order, the Additional Director General (Foreign Trade), inter-alia, imposed a penalty of Rs 1.25 crores on, inter-alia, ...
Balaji Cellulose Products Ltd Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)564; 112(2004)DLT363; 2003(70)DRJ461; 2004(178)ELT1129(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is a medium class manufacturer of white writing, printing and newsprint paper. The petitioner seeks inclusion in Schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962. The object of such inclusion is that on being so included in the said schedule, a manufacturer is entitled to excise exemption. Thus, inclusion in the said Schedule would give a manufacturer of newsprint a competitive edge and non-inclusion would result in making it difficult for the manufacturer to match up with those who enjoy the excise exemption.2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus ordering and directing the respondent to withdraw the fresh condition imposed in the letter dated 30.5.2001 and to register the petitioner in Schedule I of the Newsprint Control Order, 1962 based on the conditions first laid down in the letter dated 16.1.2001. 3. The facts are that by an application dated 20.10.2000, the petitioner applied for its inclusion in Schedule ...
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exch ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: [2005]127CompCas724(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT1; 2003(70)DRJ495; 2004(91)ECC230; [2003]48SCL562(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. Since the matter is of some urgency, with the consent of the parties, it was taken up for final hearing straight-away. In this Writ petition the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as FEMA) have come up for interpretation. The question involved in this petition relates to the extent of jurisdiction of the Chairperson relative to the jurisdiction of a member of the Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 1) with respect to the transfer of a matter for hearing by a Bench consisting of two membeRs. 2. Section 20 of FEMA reads as under:-'20 COMPOSITION OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. (1) The Appellate Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and such number of Members as the Central Government may deem fit.(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, - (a) the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal may be exercised by Benches thereof;(b) a Bench may be constituted by the Chairperson with one or more members;(c) the...
Blue Chrome Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)563; 2003(70)DRJ710
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 to return the original fixed deposit receipt bearing no. 051-305316-013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said FDR') for Rs. 6,00,000/- issued by the respondent no.2 Along with a release letter stating therein that they have no lien over the said amount.2. The facts and circumstances under which the said FDR came to be deposited with the respondent no.1 and how the latter claims to exercise lien over the same are as follows:2.1 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 25 of the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the Central Government made the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). Rule 6 of the said Rules provides that every Indian citizen and person who intends to use any...
Competition Success Review Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)442; 106(2003)DLT469; 2003(70)DRJ690
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.The petitioner publishes, inter alia, the english monthly entitled 'Competition Success Review'. This monthly publication is admittedly a 'newspaper' in terms of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and the rules made there under. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India and has been granted Registration No. 10485/64 in respect of its said publication--'Competition Success Review' -- under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The petitioner's said publication i.e.. Competition Success Review (English monthly) is also registered with the Department of Posts, Office of the Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi for transmission by post on concessional rates. This registration has been renewed from time-to-time and continues to be applicable for the period under consideration. The renewal is done under the p...
Cox India Limited Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)341
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This judgment would dispose of the aforementioned two writ petitions filed by the petitioner. The petitions are in connection with the non-grant of an L-52 license for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL)/beer in Delhi. The petitions have been taken up together as the parties are common and similar issues arise. The grievance of the petitioner in both the petitions is that its applications for L-52 licenses have been rejected arbitrarily without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the rejection orders were passed. The petitioner also claims that it has been discriminated against.2. Before the facts of the case are set out, a little background would be necessary. In the National Capital Territory of Delhi liquor licenses in Form L-2 for retail trade of IMFL/Beer and in Form L-10 for retail sale of country liquor were being granted to government owned bodies only. However, with a view to liberalise and partially privatize the ret...
Sreenath Travel Agency and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)457; AIR2004Delhi1; 106(2003)DLT623; 2003(71)DRJ363
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner's tourist bus bearing registration No. RJ-30-P0058 was impounded by Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on 9.6.1998 at 9.45 a.m. at Vasant Road, Delhi. In the challan annexed as Annexure P-2 (colly) the following offence was alleged to have been committed:-'Carrying passengers from Chittaurto Delhi, checked found W/O R/C, W/O fitness W/O permit, W/O I/C, W/O DC Badge, W/O Uniform, fails to produce any valid proof regarding aforementioned documents at the spot in originals.' 2. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the respondents could have impounded the petitioner's vehicle under Section 207(1) of the said Act when no Rules have been framed prescribing the manner of impounding? At the outset, it would be pertinent to set out the provisions of Section 207(1) ( so much as is relevant):-'207. Power to detain vehicles used without certifica...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »