Delhi Court September 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.
Shanti Chandela Vs. Pramod Nath and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)68; 108(2003)DLT101; 2004(2)SLJ346(Delhi)
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Another request is made for adjournment on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Such request for adjournment was already allowed on 23rd July, 2003. No reason is stated as to why the adjournment is sought on behalf of the counsel for respondent No.1. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. 2. Rule. 3. The writ petition is taken up today for final hearing. 4. In the present case, the impugned Award dated 28th March, 2001 proceeded against the workman, Shri Om Prakash(since deceased) and represented through his widow, Smt. Shanti Chandela in this writ petition on the ground that he did not present himself before the Industrial Tribunal-I, Delhi for cross-examination. The ground stated in the present writ petition for the non-appearance of the petitioner was that the case was adjourned before the Tribunal on the following dates:- 'That on 28.1.2000, 28.2.2000, 5.4.2000, the management sought time for settlement. That on 19.5.2000 the case adj...
Surie Engg. Works Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC148
1. This appeal has been directed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order-in-Original.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the search of the factory premises was not taken by the officers of the Central Excise in accordance with provisions of Rules 198 to 208 as they neither prepared Panchnama nor associated any witness. He has further submitted that the statement of the proprietor of the firm could not be taken into account for confirming the duty and the penalty, without seeking corroboration from any independent evidence. Therefore, the impugned order deserves be set aside/ in respect of confirmation of the duty.3. Regarding the imposition of penalty, Ld. Counsel has contended that the firm and the proprietor both could not be penalised and since the duty was deposited before the issuance of SCN, no penalty could be even otherwise imposed legally. To substantiate this contention, Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the j...
Chandra Singh and ors. Vs. Shri Gurmej Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC422; 2005ACJ820; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)222
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. Matter being short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation for the death of the wife of appellant No.1 and mother of appellants 2 and 3 who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal without taking into consideration the loss of dependency and the multiplier applicable in the case has awarded a very meagre compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The deceased was a graduate in Science and was a house wife. It is contended by Mr.Popli appearing on behalf of the appellant that in Lata Wadhwa Vs . State of Bihar : (2001)IILLJ1559SC the Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of data and taking into consideration the multifarious services rendered by the housewives for managing the entire family, even on a mo...
Rajbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)541; 107(2003)DLT544; 2003(71)DRJ73; 2004(2)SLJ300(Delhi)
B.N.Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 7th of December, 2000. He reported at BRO, Meerut to undergo basic military training for the post of Soldier Clerk(General Duty). He completed his basic military training on 19th of May, 2001, where after he was granted 14 days recruit leave with effect from 20th of May, 2001 to 4th of June, 2001. The next recruit clerk training course was scheduled to start with effect from 27th of August, 2001. The petitioner was yet to undergo a 32 weeks technical training, which was to commence post basic military training before he could qualify for appointment as Soldier Clerk(General Duty). On 17th of August, 2001, a proficiency and aptitude test, in pursuance of an Army Headquarters letter No. 2030/ACTS/Inf-2 dated 13.7.2001 was conducted. This was aimed at adjudging the petitioner's aptitude for clerical cadre. The petitioner, however, failed in that test. Notwithstanding his failure in clearing the said Proficiency and Aptitude T...
inderpuri Residents Forum (Regd.) Vs. Municipal Corp. of Delhi and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT344
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The prayer made in the review application is for review and modification of order dated 19.12.2001, to the following extent:-'In case the applicant/MCD fails to acquire the land only in that eventuality, MCD shall notify the place, where respondent No. 2 shall construct the toilet and thereafter respondent No. 2 shall take possession of the site in accordance with law. 2. For a proper appreciation of the prayer made in the review application, it would be pertinent to recapitulate the purpose for which writ petition was filed, proceedings in the writ petition culminating in the order dated 19.12.2001.3. Petitioner/ Ms. Inderpuri Residents Forum filed the above writ petition, seeking to restrain the respondent/Ms. Engineering Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. , from taking possession of the land meant for municipal Primary School in C-Block, Inderpuri, New Delhi. Further a restraint was sought on the respondent from demolishing any portion of the land meant for Municip...
H.C. Chandna (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)243
ORDERR.K. Gupta, J.M.These are four appeals by four different assessed's against the orders of assessing officer passed under section 158BC relating to the block period from l-4-1985 to 22-4-1996. All the four cases relate to Chandna group and similar issues are involved, thereforee, they are disposed off by this single order.2. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried on 22-4-1996, at residential and business premises of Shri H.C. Chandna and his sons, namely, Shri O.P. Chandna and Shri S.K. Chandna. Chandna group is engaged in the business of trading in fabric which is used for garments to be exported out of India. Shri H.C. Chandna along with two sons and other family members have floated various companies, firms and proprietorships. The detail of premises searched are as under:S1. No.Name of the premisesName of persons/concerns in whose name Panchnama prepared1.F- 18, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Shri S.K. C...
Jagdambey Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT655TriDel
1. In the above captioned appeals, appeal No. E/1169/2003-NB(C) had been preferred against the Order-in-original, dated 6-3-2003, while the other three appeals Nos. E/1171, 1327 and 1170/2003-NB(C) against the Orders-in-Original all dated 27th March 2003. The issue in all these appeals relates to the duty liability of the appellants under Section 3A(4) vis-a-vis Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the Commissioner of Central Excise, has travelled beyond the scope of the remand order, dated 7-1-2002 passed by the Tribunal vide which he was directed to determine the duty liability of the appellants under Section 3A(4) of the Act by taking into consideration their dates of the options, but he has not so done and rather held them liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.3. Learned DR on the other hand has reiterated the cor...
Sudisha Farm Nursery Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)88ITD638(Delhi)
1. Various grounds have been raised but in reality there is only one issue as to whether the income from the sale of plants grown by the assessee can be said to be agricultural income exempt under Section 10.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these : The assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in running a nursery w.e.f. 1st April, 1992. It had been declaring its income from agriculture since asst, yr. 1993-94 and claiming the same as exempt under Section 10 of IT Act, 1961 (in short Act). For asst, yr. 1998-99, if filed its return on 30th Oct., 1998, declaring income of Rs. 2,460 as interest income in addition to agricultural income of Rs. 5,61,826. The agricultural income was claimed as exempt from taxation under Section 10 of the Act. The case for this year was selected for scrutiny and consequently, the notices under Section 143(2) was issued. The assessee was asked to substantiate its claim of agricultural income. The assessee vide letter dt. 29th March, 2001, explained in detail...
Lav-kush Ramlila Committee Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)547
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The annals of this litigation will have to be narrated in some detail. The Shri Ram Lila Committee have filed CWP No. 5358/2003 with the following prayers:'i) restrain the Respondent Authorities from sub-dividing, parting the Ram Lila Ground in any manner and from allotting the part of the Ram Lila Ground to any other Ram Lila Committee for holding the Ram Lila celebrations.ii) restrain the Respondent Authorities from interfering in the Petitioner Committee's right, No Objection Permissions, approvals given by Respondent No. 2/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi vide letter No. 24258/Argt./Central dated 6.8.2003 and Respondent No. 3/Dy. Commissioner of Police, North District, Delhi vide letter No. 23757/CN dated 23.7.2003.iii) direct the MCD to hand over the possession of Ram Lila Ground to the Petitioner Committee in lieu of permissions given by Respondent No. 2/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central District, New Delhi vide letter No. 24258/Argt....
Pritpal Singh Bhatia Vs. Yogeshwar Nath and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)258; 2003(3)ARBLR485(Delhi); 2003(71)DRJ646; 2004(1)RAJ94
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred to challenge an order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application of the respondents under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. Since under Section 39 of the Act, no appeal lies against an order passed on an application under Section 33 of the Act, learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the maintainability of the appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as no appeal lies again an order deciding application under Section 33 of the Act, this appeal may be treated as a Civil Revision. In view of the submissions made, I treat it as a Civil Revision and the Office is directed to register the same as such.2. The parties to this petition were partners in a firm being run under the name and style of `M/s Consistent Clothing'. The respondents besides being partners of the firm were also directors of General Commerce Ltd. which was also engaged in the similar business of import and export. A consignment ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »