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.
Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT270TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd., is whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001 is available in respect of bulbs manufactured by them having retail sale value not exceeding Rs 20 per bulb.2.1 Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture bulbs and avail the benefit of Notification No.3/2001-CE which provides concessional rate of duty in respect of bulbs of M.R.P. not exceeding Rs. 20 per bulb subject to the condition that no Credit of duty paid on the inputs has been availed by the manufacturer and the duty has to be paid in cash or through account current; that for the purpose of manufacture of bulbs the Appellants also manufacture "Filament, Capping Cement/Calcite Mixture, Lead Glass Tubing, and Glass Shell; that these items are also being used for the manufacture of Fluorescent tube lights, which are dutiable; that sometimes they also clear these item on payment of Excise d...
Dye Stuff Manufacturers Vs. Govt. of India (Ministry of
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC607
1. These appeals are against the imposition of antidumping duty on aniline (imported from the European Union) by the Central Government vide Customs Notification No. 71/2001 dated 26.6.2001 pursuant to the final findings of the Designated Authority published in Notification dated 28.5.2001 (Ministry of Commerce & Industry). One of these appeals is by an association of domestic consumers of Aniline and the other is by an Indian importer of the item.2. In the impugned proceedings, the Designated Authority (2nd respondent) recommended imposition of definitive antidumping duty @ USD 0.342 per Kg. On all imports of Aniline (an organic chemical essential for vital industries viz. manufacturers of dyes, drugs, rubber chemicals, photographic chemicals and other important chemicals such as MDI) falling under Customs Tariff sub-heading 2921.41 and originating in, or exported from, the European Union, and the Central Government (1st respondent) implemented the recommendation. The Designated ...
Magnet Users Association Vs. Ministry of Finance Designated
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC602
1. This appeal of M/s Magnet Users Association is directed against the Custom Notification No. 123/2001-Cus dated 12.12.2001 and Final Findings dated 23rd October 2001 of the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, pursuant to which findings, the aforesaid Customs Notification was issued. The final findings were reached upon a review of the anti-dumping duty imposed on Hard Ferrite Ring Magnets under Customs Notification No. 103/99-Customs dated 6th August, 1999.2. Under final findings impugned herein, the Designated Authority recommended the imposition of a higher amount of anti-dumping duty. The anti-dumping duty imposed is the differential amount between US $ 1123.8 per MT and landed value of imported "Hard Ferrite Ring Magnet".This duty is applicable to all exports to India of the said ring magnets from all exporters/Producers from People's Republic of China.3. In the Appeal, upward revision of duty has been challenged on many grounds like rate of anti dumping duty cannot be e...
Raman Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC28
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. A/75/2003-NB(C) dated 14.2.2003.2. Shri Alok Arora, learned Advocate, submitted that the Applicants under their letter dated 15.4.98 had opted to pay the duty on the basis of actual production as it was much lower than annual capacity of production fixed by the Commissioner; that arguing the appeal before the Tribunal the main argument of the applicant was that they had opted to pay the duty on actual production basis as per their letter dated 15.4.98 and as such duty liability had to be fixed on actual production under Section 3A(4) of the Act; that thus the Applicants had not changed the option twice in the same financial year and accordingly their case is fully covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Supreme Steel & General Mills, 2001 (78) ECC 225 (SC) : 2001 (133) ELT 513; that the said letter dated 15.4.98 finds no place in the Final Ord...
Ansal theatres and Clubotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4724; 107(2003)DLT85; 2003(71)DRJ66; 2003(3)JCC1477
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Petitioners are owners of Uphaar Cinema which witnessed dance of death on 13.6.1997 when hundreds of people who had gone to see first show of the movie released on that day were trapped inside as the fire broke out and smoke emitted by it was sucked in through A.C ducts. Large number of people were choked to death while several received injuries. The doors were so locked that the people inside could not find their way out though they started running helter and skelter to save their lives. As many as 59 lives were lost due to asphyxia and many were injured as the gangways and exits remained closed. Balcony turned into a gas chamber. The fateful day turned out to be baneful day. City's eyes were suffused with tears. Whole world felt aghasty the heart-rending scenes of horrified citizens, victims' kiths and kins, near and dear ones. 2. It was one of the worst man made tragedies. Investigation revealed gross violation of Electricity rules, Cinematograph Act, Building Bye...
Dr. Mrs. Rita Kakar and ors. Vs. S.D.M. Karol Bagh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)433; 2003(70)DRJ799; 2003(3)JCC1475
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. There is a shop-cum-residence bearing No. 58, Old Rajinder Nagar. Its owner Dr. P. Lal was a single woman. On 23.10.1999 she was found dead inside the said premises. Her brother petitioner No. 2 Kuldip Raj Kashyap was informed at Chennai about her death. On learning about the death of her sister he rushed to Delhi and was handed over the dead body for cremation and last rites. 2. Petitioner No. 1, the nieceof the deceased and petitioner No. 2, her brother wanted to take possession of the premises. Instead of handing over the keys, SHO sealed the same and take into possession the keys of the premises and sent the Kalandara to the SDM that two or three more persons have staked their claim over the suit property. However, SHO did not mention who were those persons nor did he try to know their details or their names or their relationship with Dr. P. Lal. It was after due verification and satisfaction that the dead body of deceased Dr. P. Lal was handed over to her brothe...
Jakson Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)461; 2004(1)CTLJ185(Del); 107(2003)DLT272
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The respondent DDA held auction on 08.08.1985 for plots and the petitioner was the successful bidder for leasehold rights in respect of plot No. C - 149, Rewari Line Industrial Area, Phase - II, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 19, 40, 000/- and deposited the earnest money of 25% at the fall of the hammer amounting to Rs. 4, 85, 000/- .2. The bid made by the petitioner was confirmed vide letter dated 12.09.1985 and the demand was made for the balance amount of Rs. 14, 55, 011/- to be paid within one month from the date of issue of the letter.3. The petitioner visited the site, but found that the plot was encroached upon and occupied. There were few huts on the plot where people were living and the plot was being used as a godown/factory for truck body building. The petitioner, thus, set out these facts in a letter dated 10.10.1985 addressed to the respondent DDA and requested for the plot to be vacated so as to enable the balance amount to be deposited. The petitione...
R.P. Gulati Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT247; 2003(70)DRJ797; 2003(3)JCC1484; 2003RLR122
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. More than two decades have passed still the fate of the petitioner against whom instant FIR No. 1066/1982 under section 406, 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477 IPC P.S. Kotwali was registered for having embezzled the money of Punjab National Bank of which he was the employee hangs in fire. So much so even the charges have not been framed against him. With such an ambling pace another two decades will be taken in concluding the trial. What an irony and travesty of justice. This is not a delayed justice. Justice is not even in sight. Petitioner has to pass through the dark long tunnel. 2. However, by way of civil suit, the said amount has already been recovered from the petitioner. Through this petition, the quashing of aforesaid FIR is being sought mainly on the ground that if by way of civil suit recovery of amount due to the bank is made, the criminal proceedings should not be continued. Since the offences are not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C, the learned APP is ...
Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. Bani Jagtiani Trust and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)357; 107(2003)DLT58; 2003(71)DRJ81
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 8.8.2002.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.3. respondent Bani Jagtiani Trust is a public charitable trust. The property A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is the property of the trust. First floor of the said property besides a garage and a servant quarter was let out to the appellant by the trust at a monthly rental of Rs. 3, 000/- in the year 1980. 4. By resorting to Section 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the rent could be increased by 10%. Section 6A reads as under:'6A. Revision of Rent .-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the standard rent, or where no standard rent is fixed under the provisions of this Act, in respect of any premises, the rent agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, may be increased by ten per cent, every three yeaRs. '5. The respondent gave notice on 14.1.19...
Shri Shyam Singh Vs. Sh. Jhangru Parshad and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC235; 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)37
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation for the injuries received by him in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No. DLG 272 by respondent No. 1 and owned by respondent No. 2. The truck at the relevant time was insured with respondent No. 3. A few facts relevant for deciding the appeal are :On 4th September, 1987 at about 10.15 AM the appellant, who was a boy of 13 years of age at that time, was going on his cycle to the school. He was studying in Government School, Chhatarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi. All of a sudden his cycle was hit by the offending truck from behind as a result of which he fell down on the road and grievous injuries were suffered by him all over the body. The accident, according to the appellant, was caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained compound fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »