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.
Jt. Cit Vs. Budh Kishore
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Del)140
ORDERM.V Mayar, A.M.The department is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, in Appeal No. 129/BWN/1997-98, dated 3-9-1998.2. The assessed is conducting business in the name and style of M/s. Ram Swaroop Dass Radha Kishan at Bhiwani. The concern acts as a commission agent and also retails washing soaps and oil, etc. In addition, the assessed has shown income from investment made in shares. The assessed had taken loans/deposits from various persons at interest rates varying between 12 per cent to 15 per cent had also advanced amounts at 12 per cent to 18 per cent interest to various family members and others which included employees of the assessed as well as sister- concerns. A search was conducted on 20-10-1994, at the business and residential premises of this group. During the year, the assessed had been making investments in share applications of various new issues and for this purposes he had obtained FDRs from Bank s, source thereto explained as being out o...
Capital Ferro Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT417TriDel
1. The above two appeals are directed against an order rejecting the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation.2. The appellant does not dispute that the appeals were filed after a gap of 3 years and 4 months from the date of the order. Their submission is that during this period, the factory had been taken over by the SIDBI on account of some arrears and since the copy of the order of adjudication was only pasted on the factory and not served on the present appellant, there was no service of the order until they obtained the copy subsequently from the Department. It is their contention that the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of obtaining the copy of the order and not from the time of pasting of the copy on the factory gate.3. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite issue of notice to them. The notice issued to the appellant has been returned. But the copy of the notice issued to the appellants' Counsel has not been returned. A...
Young Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT213TriDel
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Young Steel Pvt. Ltd., is about the admissibility of claims of abatement of duty under the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture non-alloy steel products chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that their factory remained closed a number of times during the period from 6-5-1998 to 8-3-1999 for a period of not less than seven days each time and as such they were entitled to abatement of duty; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original No. 279/99, dated 7-12-1999 had allowed abatement for a total 8 days only out of 173 days claimed by them on the ground that the conditions stipulated under Rule 96ZO(2) were not complied with regarding intimation of closure of the factory to the Assistant Commissioner and Range Superintendent; that the Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appe...
Shiv Bahadur Joshi and ors. Vs. Election Commissioner of India
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ82CAT
1. As the issues involved relate to identical facts and law and are inter-related, these O. As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue relates to inter-se-seniority of direct recruits and promotees Assistants in Election Commission of India (ECI, for short).As per the Election Commission (Group 'A' and Group 'B' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1988, recruitment to the posts of Assistant is 50% by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation and 50% by direct recruitment through Assistant Grade Examination (AGE, for short), conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The essential qualification for the post is Upper Division Clerk with five years' regular service. The vacancies are to be worked out on yearly basis.The general instructions and criteria for fixing seniority of direct recruits was laid down by the DOPT in O.M. dated 30.7.1986. Earlier to 1990 for making direct recruitment the Commission had been requisitioning/reporting vacancies to SSC and on its ...
Pearl Global Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 107(2003)DLT350; 2003(70)DRJ790; 2004(91)ECC15; 2004(163)ELT155(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner which is a company engaged in the garment export business. The petitioner seeks an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order dated 17.11.1998 passed by the Apparel Export Promotion Council (Respondent No.4 herein), the order-in-appeal dated 16.10.2000 passed by the Textile Commissioner (Respondent No.3) and the order dated 8.10.2002 passed by the Second Appellate Committee (Respondent No.2). The petitioner also seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to withdraw the entire forfeiture of Rs. 7,98,548/- on account of the submission that the petitioner had fulfilled 96% of the quota obligation during the relevant year.3. The petitioner's case is of first-cum-first served (FCFS) quota. The relevant year is 1997. thereforee, the Garment Export Entitlement Policy 1997-1999 (hereinafter referred to as th...
Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)259; 107(2003)DLT555; 2003(70)DRJ766
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner applied in the year 1976 to the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of an industrial plot under the scheme for shifting of industry from non-conforming areas and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 250/-. The application of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 22.09.1981 on account of non- deposit of 30% of the premium required for vide the advertisement. The petitioner represented against the same and thereafter filed a civil writ petition being CWP No.1212/1982 before this Court.2. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.08.2002 on the statement of learned senior counsel for the respondent that since no personal notice was served on the petitioner before a decision was taken to reject the application of the petitioner for allotment of plot for non- payment of 30% premium, the petitioner would be given an opportunity of being heard and fresh orders will be passed giving reasons. The impugned letter dated 22.09...
Holiday Club Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)73; AIR2004Delhi16; 107(2003)DLT172
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner society applied to respondent No. 1 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 08.05.1987 for allotment of land for a club in Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. The respondent No. 1 DDA issued an allotment letter dated 22.09.1987 communicating to the petitioner the decision to allot a plot of land measuring 1620 sq. mtrs. in Panchsheel Enclave (Masjid Moth Residential Scheme) for a club. The petitioner was required to communicate its acceptance along with a draft of Rs. 3,20,760/- which amount was duly paid by the petitioner.2. The relevant clause in respect of the price of the plot is as under :-' That the Society will be required to pay the cost of land measuring 1620 sq. mtrs. @ Rs. 8 lacs per acre provisionally with annual ground rent @ 2 1/2% per annum on the total premium. The Society shall also give an undertaking to the effect that they will pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided/demanded by the DDA.' 3. The petitioner was further inf...
Dashmesh Education Society Vs. Director of Education and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)533; 107(2003)DLT301; 2003(70)DRJ772; 2003RLR107
ORDER WHEREAS, Dashmesh Educational Society, Nariana Vihar, New Delhi, established the Dashmesh Public School at Gurudwara Nariana Vihar, New Delhi which was given recognition by the Directorate of Education vide order dated 31.03.1992 under the provisions of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973; 2. AND WHEREAS, Dashmesh Educational Society, Nariana Vihar shifted the school from Gurudwara Nariana Vihar to WZ 572 J, Nariana Vihar, New Delhi without the approval of the Director of Education as is required to be done under rule 55 (1) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973; 3. AND WHEREAS, rule 55 (1) of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 provides among other things, that if a recognized school is shifted to a different locality without the previous approval of the appropriate authority, its recognition shall lapse on such shifting; 4. NOW, thereforeE, the recognition granted to Dashmesh Educational Society, Nariana Vihar, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.3.1992 to run a school without a...
Mr. S.K. Verma Vs. Chairman, Mr. (Sic), Airport Authority of India Int ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)573; 107(2003)DLT209; 2003(71)DRJ127; 2004(2)SLJ288(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule.2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself as a short controversy has emerged after judgment of this Court in C.W.3505/94 decided on April 24, 2002. Said writ petition was allowed holding that petitioner was entitled for promotion from 1993 on the basis of the result of the DPC which met on 19.4.93. It seems that said judgment dated April 24, 2002 was not challenged by the respondent and respondent granted notional seniority to the petitioner from 1993 since his junior became eligible for promotion from 24.8.93. However, respondent did not grant consequential benefits of payment of arrears of back wages from 1993 on the ground that petitioner has worked as Assistant Manager only from 2000 and thereforee, no arrears of back wages could be granted to the petitioner. In this regard counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Kalyan Singh v. Union of India CW. 4497/96 2001(1), A I S L J 216. It is contended by c...
Kari Devi and ors. Vs. Desh Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC228; 2003VIIAD(Delhi)325
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. ADMIT.2. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.3. The appellants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of the husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellants 2 to 5 in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.1937/- which were the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker in the year 1998 and applying the multiplier of 9, a total compensation of Rs.1,56,400/- was awarded in favor of the appellants. The grounds urged by learned counsel for the appellants to challenge the award are that (a) the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects in the life and career of the deceased to arrive at the loss of dependency to the family and (b) instead of the multiplier of 13 in terms of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »