Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments

Albert David Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the samples of medicine drawn from and kept in the factory premises as control samples are excisable after their expiry. The Revenue has confirmed the demand of duty on these samples. We find that this issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aristo Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2000 (121) ELT 386] and in another case of Laboratories P. Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal [2001 (127) ELT 695] and in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 214//02/c dated 10.10.02 where the Tribunal had held that control samples which were not cleared from the factory are liable for excise duty as they had attained the stage of marketability. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed....

Vinod Kumar Mehta and ors. Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)218; I(2004)BC169; [2005]128CompCas772(Delhi); 107(2003)DLT366; 2003(71)DRJ348

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned notices dated 02.07.1998 issued by the respondent No. 2 (Assistant Collector, Grade-I/II, 37, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi) and the recovery certificate dated 21.01.1998 issued by the respondent No. 1 (Haryana Financial Corporation) at Chandigarh. The petitioners have also sought a writ of prohibition against the respondents 1 and 2 from taking any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid recovery notices and a recovery certificate.2. At the threshold, the respondents have raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. The respondents state that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition and this question be decided first before examining the merits of the case. Accordingly, the question of territorial jurisdiction is being disposed of by this judgment.3. The petitioners are ...

Jai Dayal Vs. Shakuntala Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)513; 107(2003)DLT33; II(2003)DMC497; 2003(71)DRJ156

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1998, whereby the Matrimonial Court had dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:The parties were married according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 1.7.1971 and three children were born from this wedlock. Alleging that the appellant had treated her with cruelty, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Besides other allegations of ill-treatment of the respondent by the appellant it was alleged in the petition that the respondent crossed all limits when he leveled serious charges of immorality on the petitioner. It was alleged that the appellant issued a legal notice dated 6.12.1996, levelling serious allegations of immorality on the petitioner and her having illicit relations with one Mr. Kishore Kumar and then f...

Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta and ors. Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)65; AIR2004Delhi282; 107(2003)DLT160

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition of immovable property No. A-44, Inder Puri, New Delhi, constructed over land admeasuring about 200 Sq.Yds. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case is that the property in suit namely A-44, Inder Puri, New Delhi was owned by Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta. Construction on the said plot was raised by Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta in the year 1967-68. Shri Shambhu Mal Gupta had four sons namely Sh. R.M.Gupta (since deceased now represented by his LR s who are plaintiff Nos. 4 (a) to (c), Sh. M.M.Gupta, defendant No.1, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta, plaintiff No.1, Sh. Mahesh Gupta, plaintiff No.2 and one daughter Smt. Raj Rani Garg who is plaintiff No. 3 in the suit. Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta had been realizing rent from tenant. Defendant No. 1 had also admitted the ownership of Shri Shambhu Mal in respect of the said property. In this regard he had executed a Release Deed dated 11.2.71 declaring that he (defendant No.1) has no right, title or interest wha...

Puneet Singh Chauhan and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 107(2003)DLT220; 2003(71)DRJ373; 2003(3)JCC1485; 2003RLR110

J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. By this common order, both these petitions are disposed of. 2. The apprehension of the counsel for the petitioners is that on appearance before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to the non-bailable warrants they may not be released on bail in spite of the fact that the offence is bailable. This apprehension appears to be misplaced as in bailable offence the power of the Magistrate to procure the presence of the accused who has not been appearing despite service of summons by way of warrant of arrest with the direction to produce the accused before him is solely for the purpose of procuring his presence and the moment such a person is either produced in execution of warrant of arrest or appear on his own has to be released on furnishing bond with or without surety as liberty of no person can be curtailed, abridged or put in shelf in a case where he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Power to procure the presence of the accused through warrant of arrest ...

Geetanjali Nursing Home (P) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Dileep Makhija and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2004Delhi53; [2005]127CompCas659(Delhi); (2004)1CompLJ457(Del); 107(2003)DLT180; [2003]48SCL524(Delhi)

ORDERO.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. By this order I shall govern the disposal of IA. No. 7626/ 2003, under O. 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the plaintiff in suit No. 1456/2003 seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering into the hospital premises, committing illegal trespass into the hospital premises at 3 MMTC/ STC Colony, New Delhi, opposite Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi, causing any disruption, interference in the working of hospital and from carrying on any personal and/or professional work from the hospital premises. 2. Plaintiff Geetanjali Nursing Home (P) Ltd. duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office 3, MMTC/STC Colony, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi is engaged in the business of running and maintaining hospital under the name and style of 'Geetanjali Hospital'. The defendants herein are medical practitioners/ Doctors who were permitted by the plaintiff to practice their medical profession from the said hospital. Defendant No....

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rakesh Vij and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2004)ACC244; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)257; 2003(71)DRJ429

S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The only point taken in appeal by the appellant/insurance company to challenge the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is that the Tribunal ought not have awarded compensation in favor of the appellant s for the death of their predecessor-in-interest who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver as the driver at the relevant time did not have a valid driving license. It is submitted that since the insured by permitting the driver who did not have a valid driving license had violated the conditions of the contract of insurance, the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants.2. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported as New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Lehru : [2003]2SCR495 has held that even if the driving license was fake, the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the innocent third party, however, it may be able to rec...

Avneesh Gupta Vs. Sanjeev Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)499; 108(2003)DLT196; 2003(71)DRJ537; 2003(3)JCC316

S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2002 holding the appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dated 18.10.2002 sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a penalty of Rs. 24,000/-.2. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint stating that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 10.8.1993 and issued 25 post dated cheques of Rs. 3,000/- each; 4 cheques dated 10.9.1993, 10.10.1993, 10.11.1993 and 10.12.1993 when presented to the bank for encashment were dishonoured for 'insufficient funds'. The complainant sent separate notices to the appellant. One notice was served upon the appellant and the appellant avoided the service of other notices. After pre-summoning evidence, the appellant was summoned and he pleaded not guilty. The complainant in support of its case proved the loan agreement, the dishonoured cheques and the notice issued by him. In c...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Vikram Super Cement and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(91)ECC460

1. In these six appeals, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on capital goods used in mines away from the factory is available to M/s. Vikram Super Cement, under erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We heard Shri Virag Gupta, learned DR for Revenue and Shri B.L.Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the respondents. M/s. Vikram Super Cement manufacture cement and have availed the Modvat Credit of the duty paid on various capital goods which were used by them in their mines, situated about 4 to 5 kms away from their factory. The learned DR submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cement v. CCE, M.P., 2001 (77) ECC 457(SC) : 2001 (133) ELT 3 (SC) that the capital goods are required to be used in the factory for the purpose of availing Modvat Credit; that the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 2003 (56) RLT 978 (CEGAT-LB) has hel...

Cce Vs. Steel Strips and Wheels Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(112)LC573Tri(Delhi)

2. Learned D.R. strongly pleads that credit of Rs. 14,503/- is sought to be denied because the inputs in question did not figure in the declaration made by the respondents under modvat procedure. It has been fairly conceded by the learned D.R. that there is no allegation that the said inputs were not duty paid or have not been utilised in accordance with the provisions. The case of Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. v.CCE, Meerut reported in 2000 (40) RLT-575, relied upon by the Commissioner (appeals), relates to entirely different facts. In that case, concession was granted on the ground that new items and become eligible for the credit. In this case, items were permitted for modvat credit under the rules and the respondents falied to properly declare them in the relevant declaration. It is not the case of the respondents that they have made such declaration. Therefore, it is pleaded that, the credit to the extent of Rs. 14,503/- has wrongly been allowed by the Commissioner (appeals) and the o...