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.
Amrik Singh and ors. Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)554; 106(2003)DLT199; 2003(70)DRJ315
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.Ms. 3921 & 4185/2003 in CWP No. 1669/2000. It is a short order and it is necessary to reproduce the same in entirety. The order reads as under: 'The matter has been discussed in Court with the Vice-Chairman, DDA and the Commissioner, MCD. The Commissioner, MCD states that the MCD is willing to sanction the plans in view of the requirement of the M.R.T.S. subject to the petitioners furnishing an undertaking and indemnity to the effect that the petitioners will comply with the norms of the Central Pollution Control Board required for purposes for which the land is to be utilised as per the terms of the perpetual lease where the petitioners were located earlier. It is further stated that the petitioners should be permitted to use the site only only for the said purpose. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on instru...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Bijender Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)582; 109(2004)DLT302; 2004(75)DRJ386
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The impugned Order dated 26th May, 1999 closes the evidence of the petitioner by way of affidavit as examination-in-chief because the deponent, Shri Hari Raj Singh was not present for cross-examination. The solitary instance of the absence of the Hari Raj Singh on 26th May, 1999 led to the impugned order. Based on no evidence led on behalf of the management, the application seeking approval for termination of respondent's services was dismissed by the Tribunal.2. In my view, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations against the respondent/workman and a solitary instance of the deponent Hari Raj Singh's absence, it is appropriate that the petitioner be given the opportunity to lead its evidence subject to the payment of the costs as it is due to the petitioner's fault that the respondent/workman has been dragged in this Court.3. Accordingly, the Order dated 26th May, 1999 is set aside as it denies an opportunity to the p...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)40; 109(2004)DLT575; 2004(72)DRJ479; (2004)IILLJ569Del
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition by the employer Delhi Jal Board challenges the award dated 18th January, 2000 in I. D. No. 226/1996 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which ordered the regularizing of the respondent No. 2 on the post of Lab Technician from August, 1992. The respondent No. 2 is a graduate in Chemistry from a recognized University and worked as a Lab Technician with the petitioner since 1971. The respondent No. 2 claimed before the Tribunal that he was employed with the petitioner as Lab Technician since 1971 and in between his services were illegally terminated by the petitioner which resulted in the award dated 21st November, 1987 by the Industrial Tribunal in the respondent No. 2's favor directing reinstatement. The said award dated 21st November, 1987 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner management by filing CWP No. 2768/88 in this Court which was ultimately dismissed in liming on 19th February, 1991. By the said award dated 21st November, 1987 ...
Manoj Kumar Gope Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003VAD(Delhi)663; 106(2003)DLT405; 2003(71)DRJ662; 2004(1)SLJ186(Delhi)
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army as Operator Radio Artillery. In the course of inter-unit handball competition held on 13th of September, 1993, he suffered a knee injury which was diagnosed as Post Traumatic Otsego -Arthritis is (left) knee. He was down graded medically to CEE(Temp) for 6/12 years on 3rd October, 2000. Subsequently, however, on 8th of April, 2001, he was upgraded to medical category SIHIA 2 (PERMT) PIEI (BEE PERMT). His next Review Medical Board was due to be held on 3rd of April, 2003 which, however, could not take place in view of his alleged discharge order issued on 15th of February, 2003. His Release Medical Board was held on 17th of April, 2003 granting him 20% minor disability pension.2. The petitioner received a copy of a Circular dated 15/19.2.2003 stating that he would be discharged from service with effect from 31st of July, 2003. He was sought to be discharged on the grounds: (a) being placed in low medical category, his retenti...
Vinod Kumar Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 108(2003)DLT545
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. It is explained by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that an error has occurred for the reason that the Roll Number allotted by the college to the petitioner (37) was not identical to the Roll Number allotted by the University (45).The petitioner was allotted the marks which had been received by the candidate holding the Roll No. 37 with the University. The candidate was shown as not successful in the list. On his representation the error was discovered. The result is that the candidate with the Roll No. 37 has eventually been found successful. In view of the Explanationn given, no further orders are called for in this petition which is dismissed as withdrawn. ...
Shree F.J. Heredia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC855
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. The petitioner at the relevant time was Director of Ambuja Petro Chemicals Ltd. (in short referred to as 'the Company'). The company had applied for and was granted license under the Duty Exemption Scheme whereunder it could import Orthoxylene without payment of import duty against its obligation to export Phallic Anhydride. After the import of Orthoxylene and using the same in the manufacture of Anhydride, the company could not export the same due to recession in the international market and sold it in the domestic market. Pursuance to an order passed by the Gujarat High Court, the company had stated to have paid excise duty on the Orthoxylene imported by it and according to the company it was, thereforee, not liable to export the same under the Duty Exemptions Scheme. A show cause notice was, however, issued on 7.11.1994, by the respondents under Section 4-L 'of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 calling upon the company to show cause as to why penalty be ...
Good Year (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC151
1. In this Appeal, filed by M/s. Good Year (India) Ltd., the issue involved is whether the rubberized and calendered tyre cord warp manufactured by them is classifiable under sub-heading 5902.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner under the impugned order or under Heading 59.06 of the Tariff as claimed by them.2. Shri Joseph Vellapally, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the tyre cord fabric is first dipped in a Resorcinol solution and thereafter the rubber compound is applied and the fabric is calendered; that demands of duty had been raised against some tyre companies; that in some cases the demand was raised after the stage of calendering; that in the present matter also the demand has been raised after the stage of calendering; that under a letter dated 22-9-80 the Appellants were directed for the first time to apply for Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of cord warpsheet, that the Appellants under their letter dated 27-9...
ind-swift Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1103TriDel
2. The entire duty amount of Rs. 51,670/- has already been deposited by the appellants. Even the confiscated goods of the value of the Rs. 2.5 lakhs are still with the Customs authorities. Therefore, the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 30,000/- is waived.3. With the consent of both sides, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits.4. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 13-2-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/-and absolute confiscation of the goods i.e. Bulk Drug Amikacin Sulphate of USP-24.5. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported one consignment of 50 kgs. of Bulk Drug Amikacin Sulphate of the value of Rs. 2,50,339/-. These goods were supplied by M/s. Zhenjiang Chemicals Import & Export Corpn., China, vide invoice dated 19-1-2002. The goods were airlifted from China vide Airway Bill dated 17-1-2002. The appellants, bein...
Anoka Kohli Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC185
1. Appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-99, the Officers of the Customs Department searched the godown belonging to the appellant and Ball Bearings of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,11,76,250/- were recovered. As the appellant could not produce the proof in respect of the lawful import/possession of the Ball Bearings, the goods were taken into possession. In his statement, the appellant mentioned that Ball Bearings belongs to one Shri Ram Niwas who sent these Ball Bearings through transport Company and gave the telephone number of transport Company. Enquiries were made from Shri Ram Niwas who denied any relation with the appellant. Enquiry was also made from the transporter who also denied that any consignment was delivered to the appellant at the given address. After issuance of th...
Minda Huf Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)305
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) on various grounds with are as under : "1. The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs. 65,95,132 under Section 43B of the Act, claimed by the appellant as per sales-tax deferral scheme. 1.1 The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the date of the order on which the Industrial Department sanctions the loans to PICUP will be considered the date on which the trader has deposited the trade tax for purposes of Section 43B of the Act. 1.2 The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing a sum of Rs. 29,18,459 under Section 43B of the Act, claimed by the appellant as unpaid sales-tax liability of earlier years holding that the order of DDAC for disposal of application of the appellant unit for eligibility certificate was passed on 19th May, 1999, i.e., beyond the previous year. 2. The CIT(A) erred on facts and in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »