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.
Audichem India Limited Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)(113)LC951Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants had availed input duty credit of Rs. 24,301.50 under Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for payment of duty on two by-products, namely, Acetic Acid and Hydrochloric Acid cleared during the period June to November, 1993. The Department issued a show-cause notice to the party asking them to show cause why the above by-products had not been declared as final products and also why the duty should not be recovered through PLA debit. The proposal was contested. The original authority dropped the proposal, holding that the non-declaration was only a minor procedural lapse and could not be sufficient ground to disallow credit which was otherwise admissible. In the appeal preferred by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal of the assessee.2. Heard both the sides and considered their submissions. There is no dispute regarding the duty-paid nature of the inputs, nor has the Department alleged that the in...
Azad Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC574
1. The above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original vide which duty and penalty against M/s. Azad Engineering Works and penalties against other appellants under Rule 209A as detailed therein, had been confirmed.2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the charge of clandestine manufacture of the goods in question (diesel generating sets, diesel engines) by M/s. Azad Engineering Works, appellant No. 1 and clearances of the same by them to the other appellants without payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order against all the appellants deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that appellant No. 1, M/s. Azad Engineering Works is engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines and diesel generating sets with ISI mark under ...
S.K. Malhotra, S/O Shri S.L. Malhotra Vs. Engineering Projects (India) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)380; 105(2003)DLT906; 2003(71)DRJ730; 2004(1)SLJ172(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order of termination of his service pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.1.1992 pursuant to which enquiry was conducted by the respondent and order of termination was passed on 1.5.1992. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also rejected on 29.9.1992. Mr. Venkatramani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has contended that enquiry officer appointed by the respondents was an outsider and under the Rules of the respondents only an officer of the company could have been the enquiry officer. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case of Manjit Ahluwalia, V/s. UOI & ors. : 53(1994)DLT571 . It was contended that procedure of holding enquiry as per the Rules were not followed and the admission, which was extracted from the petitioner was on the basis of certain promises made to the petitioner that a lenient view...
Kiran Chaudhary Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)434; 2004CriLJ747; 106(2003)DLT211; 2003(70)DRJ188; 2003(3)JCC1417
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this petition, combined order passed by Ms.Kamini Lau, Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR Nos.336/93 and 337/93 whereby the applications of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor moved under Section 321 Cr.P.C for withdrawal of the cases were declined, has been assailed. Both the cases were registered on the complaints of rival political parties viz. BJP and Congress. 2. About a decade back there were elections in Delhi Cantonment area. Leaders and workers had collected in their respective camps. Petitioner Smt.Kiran Choudhary of Congress was at her election office when the procession of the BJP Workers was proceeding with long line of vehicles who were raising slogans at highest pitch in threatening tones. She requested the police to stop them but all of a sudden crowd passing in front of her office started pelting stones not only at the office but also at the photographers who were taking their pictures. The mob then descended with sticks which had flags ...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Sehryan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC179; 2003VAD(Delhi)610; 106(2003)DLT303; 2003(71)DRJ743; (2003)135PLR50
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby a sum of Rs.42,000/- was awarded as compensation to the respondent for the injuries suffered by him in an accident alleged to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle by its driver. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:-2. The respondent was working as a loader in the truck, belonging to the appellant, at the Food Corporation of India at its Naraina Depot, New Delhi; that on 21.3.1985, after loading the bags of wheat, rice and sugar etc. from the FCI Depot, the truck was going to the fair price shop at Najafgarh for delivery; that the respondent Along with three other paledars was sitting in the said truck for unloading the bags. It was further the case of the respondent that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and when the truck reache...
Syndicate Bank and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)246; 105(2003)DLT959
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. A perpetual lease was executed on 14.5.1980 in favor of M/s En Cee and Associates Private Limited, respondent No. 3, by respondent No. 1 DDA in respect of plot No. B-3, G.T. Karnal Road Industrial Area, Azadpur. The prescribed user as per lease was running an industry of auto spring leaves or such other manufacturing process or industry as may be approved from time to time by the Lt. Governor.2. Respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 1, which is a nationalized bank, entered into an arrangement for opening of a branch of petitioner No. 1 bank in the premises and in view thereof a written request was made by the petitioner bank to respondent DDA for permission to open the bank on 2.4.1984. The respondent DDA vide letter dated 17.5.1984 informed the petitioner bank that the proposal of running a bank can be considered under a special appeal for temporary period for one year up to 15.5.1985 subject to the petitioner bank paying to the respondent DDA a composition fee...
Veena Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Inderjeet Pandey and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC6; 2004ACJ1831; 2003VAD(Delhi)584; 105(2003)DLT957; 2003(70)DRJ345; (2003)135PLR9
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. ADMIT. 2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Tribunal at the time of assessing compensation payable to the family of the deceased was required to take into consideration the future prospects in life of the deceased and whether the appellant is entitled to more interest than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 3. In a claim petition filed by the wife and parents of the deceased who had died in a road accident while he was traveling in a car which was hit by a truck being driven rashly and negligently by its driver on 26.4.1992, the Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck held that the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to award of compensation in their favor. Taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month in terms of the income-tax assessment order, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- by applying the multiplier of 16. The decea...
People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)229; 105(2003)DLT937; 2003(70)DRJ162
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1.The Delhi State branch of People's Union of Civil Liberties has filed this public interest litigation alleging that there was a big scandal in the purchase of IV Fluids by Safdarjung Hospital during the year 1993-94. IV fluids purchased by the Safdarjung Hospital were contaminated and purchased at exhorbitant prices. 2.The other main grievance of the petitioner is regarding keeping of vital diagnostic and medical equipments deliberately non-functional by various Government hospitals in order to compel the patients of government hospitals to go to private hospitals and from whom they get a cut or commission. The third grievance of the petitioner was regarding the custom duty exemption for medical equipments imported by the private hospitals.3.During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the first two reliefs and did not press the third relief regarding the custom duty exemption for medical equipments imported by private hospitals. there...
Dayanand Swaroop Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)487; 109(2004)DLT350; 2003(70)DRJ607
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the appointment of respondents 3 to 18 to perform the function of notaries under the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in District Bulandshahar, U.P. The petitioners themselves are also notaries practicing as such in District Bulandshahar, U.P. The petitioners were appointed by the State Government whereas the respondents 3 to 18 are notaries appointed by the Central Government. These facts are not in dispute.2. The only bone of contention is that the respondents 3 to 18 who have been appointed as such by the Central Government have not been appointed validly inasmuch as the competent authority has not recommended their cases for such appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the competent authority is the District Judge, Bulandshahar (Respondent No.2) herein. He has referred to a letter dated 11.1.1996 purportedly issued by the District Judge and addr...
Krampe Hydraulik (India) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-30-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)436; 2003(71)DRJ353
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. The questions involved in this writ petition are:-(i) Whether detention of the petitioners' goods on 3.11.1976 amounted to seizure within the meaning of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962?(ii) If the answer to question (i) above is in the affirmative, whether the Show Cause Notice which was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962 on 7.5.1977 was not bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962?(iii) Whether, in any event, the petitioners' goods could at all be confiscated or penalties be imposed upon the petitioners after the Bill of Entry in respect of the said goods had been assessed and the said goods had been cleared in terms of the provisions of Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962?2. To examine the questions in the perspective of the petitioners' case, a brief resume of the facts would be necessary.3. The petitioner No.1 held an import license for, inter alia, importing 'Thin Walled Bearings - All Sizes'. By a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »