Delhi Court January 2004 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.
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT291TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has disallowed the remission of duty on the damaged goods, to them.2. Shri Manish Gaur, Co-Representative, has contended that the damage to the goods (Pan Masala) occurred due to heavy rain as the rain water entered in the premises wherein the goods were stored therefore, the remission of duty on the damaged goods which became unfit for human consumption, of the disputed amount, deserves to be given.3. On the other hand the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.4. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that the appellants claimed remission of duty in respect of 50 cases of 4 gm. each packing and 48 cases of 1.75 gm each packing, of the Pan Masala on the ground that due to heavy rain, the rain water entered in the factory premises as well as in the bounded store where the goods were stored. But, in...
Union Bank of India Vs. Garden Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC164
1. Appellant-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') filed O.A. 371/98 against 6 defendants who are respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant Nos. 1 to 6') for the recovery of Rs. 88,56,535.16 with interest thereon @ 17.34% per annum with quarterly rest's from the date of O.A. till the recovery of the amount. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') by his final order dated 26th July, 2001 ordered that the appellant-Bank is entitled to recover this amount from defendant Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the O.A. He held that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not responsible for this amount. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank has approached this Tribunal with this appeal with a prayer for directing all the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to pay the amount with interest @ 17.34% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of O.A. till realisation...
Vinod Khatri Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)82TTJ(Delhi)911
1. The Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider and decide the following question in the above captioned appeal: "Whether the Tribunal fees on an appeal against the order of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is governed by Clause (d) of Section 253(vi) or Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 253(vi) of the IT Act whereas the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) directly relate to the assessed income?" 1.1 The question as framed and as reproduced above appears to be confusing as the last part of the last sentence is misleading. Hence, for more clarity we modify the questions and reframe the same as under: "Whether the Tribunal fees on an appeal against the order of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is governed by Clauses (d) of Section 253(6) or Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 253(6) of the IT Act." 2. The relevant facts, giving rise to the issue for the consideration of the Special Bench are being narrated in brief, as under: 3. The assessee filed I...
Haro Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar Chawla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT297; 2004(72)DRJ639
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in which the prayer for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was granted whilst the prayer for damages was rejected. This Revision has been filed on 17.7.2001, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grounds urged for condoning the delay reads thus:'2. That inadvertently the previous Counsel of the petitioner approached the appellate Court wrongly for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner/applicant.3. That though the appeal was filed in time but the same was filed in a wrong Court.4. That delay in filing the present Revision Petition is not attributed to the petitioner/applicant but due to filing of the wrong appeal filed by the previous Counsel of the petitioner/applicant.5. That the petitioner/applicant should not suffer for mistake of his Counsel and the petitioner should be heard on...
Sh. Ram Chander Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(72)DRJ545
J.D. Kapoor, J 1. Petitioner has been refused the leave to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of bonfire requirement of the premises vide order dated 19.7.2003. 2. The sole ground and the premise on the basis of which the impugned order is being challenged is that the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the premises on the strength that he occupied the premises in the year 1972 and since then he is occupying the premises and thus he has become owner of the premises by virtue of his adverse possession. On the contrary, the respondent land lady, who claims to have inherited the ownership of the premises from her husband, has produced house tax receipt a well as one agreement executed between her husband and the petitioner way back in the year 1967 showing the relationship of landlord and tenant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently that once relationship of landlord and tenant is challenged, tenant is entitled to leave to contest the eviction ...
Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. Delhi Scheduled Castes Financial and Developm ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ49
Manmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of parties, the case is taken up for disposal. 1. This writ petition is filed by 57 petitioners who claim to be members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Petitioners claim to have applied among others in response to an advertisement issued by Delhi Schedule Caste Financial and Development Corporation inviting applications from members of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes of Delhi for sanction of margin money/loan for the purchase of ambassador car to be used as DLY Taxi under the Scheme of providing loan for plying of 'DLY Taxis'. 2. Petitioners claim that they duly met the eligibility conditions and in response to the advertisement, had applied and were sanctioned loans. Learned counsel for the petitioner state that apart from 57 petitioners there were about 43 other applicants, who all were successful and were allotted ambassador cars i.e., to be used for plying as DLY Taxis. Fourteen vehicles were supplied on 31.3.1995 and remaining...
Rajesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT913; 2004(73)DRJ384
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.8.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of the order dated 17.4.1997 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and further vide order dated 19.4.1997 sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 27.8.1997 dismissed the appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction. He confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, however, the Supreme Court has, in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, : 1988CriLJ1816 and Haripada Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 148...
Sita Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ382
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge arising out of the order dated 28.5.1990 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty under Sections 7/16(1)(1A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for violation of Section 2(ia), (a), (j), (1) of the Act and further vide order dated 30.5.1998 sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.10.2000 dismissed the appeal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction. He confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act, however, the Supreme Court has, in Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, : 1988CriLJ1816 and Haripada Das ...
Sapna Tours, Travels and Lease Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Del)477; [2004]269ITR266(Delhi)
1. Essentially, on the question of fact, the Tribunal has decided the appeal and has confirmed the order made by the assessing authority which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal after examining the agreements and other material which was placed on record, arrived at a conclusion that the vehicles were given to the companies and also arrived at the conclusion that the assessed failed to prove the fact that the cars were used by the Indian companies for the foreign tourists at that time during the period of agreement. The Tribunal examined some certificates to indicate the use of vehicles for foreign tourists. However, it is required to be noted that it is the assessed who has to give his vehicle to the tourists on hire basis so as to earn the benefits under Section 32 of the IT Act. To promote the tourism, the scheme was incorporated at the relevant time strictly confining benefits of depreciation on imported vehicles used for tourists. If the vehicle is used on hire for tourists...
U.K. Raina Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: [2004]50SCL667(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks to challenge the General Circular No. 35/2003, dated 11-12-2003 issued by respondent No. 1 in terms of which a clarification was issued that a company which is not required under law to employ a whole-time secretary but nevertheless employed a whole-time secretary, such a company is not required to obtain compliance certificate, from the company secretary in practice. The effect of the clarification is that company employing a full-time company secretary is not required to obtain a compliance certificate from a company secretary in practice. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid clarification militates against the proviso to Section 383A of the Companies Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short]. It is contended that there is no power to give legitimacy to a certificate given by a company secretary in employment when the proviso stipulates issuance of such certificate by a company secretary in practice...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »