Delhi Court August 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.
Bikramjit Arora Vs. Soma Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)228; 106(2003)DLT522; 2003(71)DRJ55
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellant had filed suit against the respondents on the allegations that he was a tenant of respondent no.1 with regard to a stall situate at Sadar Bazaar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. Alleging that the respondents were threatening to dispossess the appellant by force, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents for an injunction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant otherwise than by due process of law. In the suit the stand taken by respondent no.1 was that the appellant was not her tenant; that the stall in question was allotted to her by Delhi Cantonment Board on license basis and as she was a widow, she had only permitted the appellant to run the said stall without creating any right in his favor. Though, in certain other proceedings, respondent no.1 had admitted appellant to be her tenant and had undertaken not to dispossess him forcibly, however, in these proceedings respondent no.1 denied appell...
Raj Bahadur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)393; 106(2003)DLT668
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is a Khalasi/chowkidarin the Flood Control Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi. It is an unfortunate circumstance that the petitioner tested HIV positive and is suffering from what is commonly known as, AIDS. The question in this petition relates to the provision of medical treatment to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was earlier being treated at LNJP Hospital which is a hospital under the Government of NCT. As the doctors attending to the petitioner felt that the petitioner required special care and treatment, the petitioner was referred to All India Institute of Medical Science. The latter hospital is not under the Government of NCT. The question in the present petition is whether the petitioner would be entitled to free medical treatment in AllMS as well. The applicable scheme for providing medical facilities to employees/pensioners of the Delhi Government was notified on 13.3.97 and is at pages 208 to 210 of the paper book. It is an...
Fahad Ansari Vs. All India Insititute of Medical Sciences
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT163; 2004(75)DRJ549
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Rule.2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties at length.3. I recall the legal maxim 'Ignorentia Jurisdiction non execusat'. It applies even to illiterate citizens of this country and where the Respondent is an autonomous body claiming to be of national eminence and independent even of the Medical Council of India, which has been held to be the statutory authority for governing matter relating to medicine in India, this maxim applies a fortiori. The Petitioner before me claims to be physically handicapped and in this regard has produced a certificate issued from Patna. Since the Petitioner failed to gain admittance to the MBBS course in the AIIMS, he approached the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities in the case No. 2757/2003. A short Reply has been filed by the AIIMS in which it has stated 'that the AIIMS takes its own decisions and, thereforee, decisions of the MCI are not applicable automatically and mutates mutants. That all such decisio...
Bhel Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(112)LC587Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue involved in these three appeals, filed by M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., is whether duty of Excise is payable on the goods cleared by them as a free warranty replacement.2. Shri Z.U. Alvi, learned Advocate, fairly mentioned that the issue on merit has been decided by the Supreme Court in their own case - B.H.E.L. v. CC and CE, Indore . On. the question of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the learned Advocate submitted that there cannot be any suppression on their part as the department has earlier adjudicated the matters on this aspect alone on 6.12.1991 and 18.6.1998; that the present show cause notice have been issued for the period November, 1998 to June, 1999; that thus all the show cause notices have been issued after both the Adjudicating orders passed by the Commissioner, Indore/Bhopal; that in addition immediately after the first Adjudication Order dated 6.12.1991 the Appellants had addressed 3 letters to the Commissioner wi...
Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT938TriDel
1. Having examined the records and heard both the sides, I am inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally. Accordingly, application for waiver of pre-deposit is allowed and the appeal is taken-up.2. Modvat credit of Rs. 1,24,488/- which was taken on weigh bridges during Jan. to Dec., 1998 under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been disallowed by the authorities below on the ground that the weigh bridges which had been installed away from the factory were not eligible capital goods for Modvat credit. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants on the ground of irregular availment of Modvat credit. Hence, the present appeal.3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, fairly, concedes that the question whether capital goods installed outside the factory of production of final products were eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q during the above period is one which has already been settled by the Apex Court. Ld. Counsel also refers to a decisio...
Keshav Nilu Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC653
1. The appellant manufactures MS Ingots etc. under induction furnace process. Under Notification No. 23/97-CE(NT) dated 25.7.97 and 30/97 dated 1.8.97 such goods were brought under the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This has the effect of imposing duty at compounded rates. The present appeal challenges duty demand at compounded rates and seeks levy of duty based on the actual production.Ground (B) of the Appeal states as under: "(B). That duty of excise of Chapter 72 is prescribed in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which has authority of law. The levy and rate prescribed in the schedule is a compulsory obligation to be discharged by the manufacturer of the goods of Chapter 72." The appellant also has submitted that it had not opted for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3).2. As against this, the submission of the Revenue is that the appellant had discharged duty as specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules in terms of C...
Khandelwal Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC698
1. In this Appeal M/s. Khandelwal Cement Ltd. are challenging the demand of duty on slag cement and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act.2. Shri. P.R. Mullick, learned Chartered Accountant submitted that the Appellants manufacture cement; that the allegation in the show cause notice is that they have purchased 407.795 MT and 476.850 MT. of Slag from Malvika Steel Ltd. for manufacturing the cement and by consuming the said slag, slag cement have been manufactured and cleared without payment of duty; that Shri Murari Lal Sharma, General Manager in his statement dated 21.8.98, submitted that the slag is added to clinker to manufacture slag cement; that however, in his another statement dated 29.1.99 Shri Murari Lal Sharma, deposed that the Appellants are not using the slag and in the earlier period of slag was being used during trial production and now they are only manufacturing ordinary Portaland cement. He, further, submitted that the Appellants ha...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sunny Imports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC696
1 .This is an appeal by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-I dated 25.4.2003. The issue relates to classification of the goods imported by the Respondent.2. M/s. Sunny Imports Private Ltd. Jaipur imported a consignment of sawn wood declaring it as "roughly squared Ghana Teak Logs 1770 pcs." and sought clearance under Customs Tariff Heading 4403.49 at the rate of 5% basic customs duty and 4% SAD. On examination of the goods in the presence of authorised representative of the importer Shri Vikram Mohatt, the customs authorities took the view that the goods are sawn wood classifiable under CTH 4407.29 with duty liability at the rate of 25% basic customs duty plus 4% SAD. Value of the goods was enhanced by US $ 50 per cubic metre (Cbm) on the basis of past imports of the same importer. Change in classification and enhancement of value resulted in a differential duty liability of Rs. 1,21,927. The importer waived show...
Col. K.S. Malik and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC233
1. First respondent-Oriented Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent - Bank') filed Suit No. 1098/2001 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 5.4.2001 against seven defendants, namely, (1) M/s. Geetanjali Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mr. S.S. Bedi, (3) Mrs. Moksh Bedi, (4) Col. K.S. Malik (one of the appellants herein) (5) Mr. Asha Ram, (6) Mrs. H. Malik (the other appellant herein), and (7) M/s. Richer Motors Ltd. for (1) the recovery of Rs. 4,50,395.72 with future interest till realisation against defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally under the Cash Credit Hypothecation/Deferred Payment Guarantee/Co-acceptance Bills account; for a decree for the sale of two hypothecated Eicher Center vehicles mentioned in the plaint for realising the said amount; (2) for a decree for Rs. 11,28,613.02 with future interest jointly and severally against defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 under the cash-credit pledge account; (3) to direct the defendants 1 and 7 not to sell the 10 Eic...
Finquick Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Delhi)319
1. This miscellaneous petition for rectification of mistakes apparent from record under Section 254(2) of the IT Act, arising out of order dt. 24th Aug., 2001, in ITA No. 842/DeI/2000 for asst, yr. 1997-98 is moved by the appellant. The misc. petition contains 56 pages in all.Therefore, on 4th Jan., 2002, when the case was first fixed for hearing, assessee was directed to file brief to the point and precise of mistakes claimed to be on the face of record arising from the order passed by the Tribunal. On 1st Feb., 2002, learned authorised representative filed a summary of the main application narrating therein 30 mistakes from the order. The case was partly heard and adjourned to 4th Feb., 2002 and again on 6th Feb., 2002.2. Learned authorised representative arguing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the order requires to be recalled for de novo disposal for ground Nos. 8, 9 and 10 have not been disposed of and that norms of natural justice have been violated and further that rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »