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.
Resistoflex Dynamics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT312TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of small-scale exemption notification has been denied to the appellants on the ground that during the financial year, they cleared certain goods on normal rate of duty.3. The contention of the appellants is that they filed necessary declaration to avail the benefit of small-scale exemption Notification No. 9/2000 with effect from 1-4-2000. Due to mistake, by their manager, certain goods were cleared at full rate of duty. On realising the mistake, the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of the duty paid by them as they were availing the benefit of small-scale exemption notification. The Deputy Commissioner vide order No. 2/2001, dated 11-4-2001 sanctioned the refund. The contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances, the denial of benefit of small-scale exemption notification is not sustainable. The appellants also submitted that as per the condition of small-scale exemption Notificatio...
Hony Capt. Vardip Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT536; 2004(72)DRJ596; 2004(2)SLJ480(Delhi)
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who are the parents of the deceased Captain Manjinder Singh have filed this writ petition. Writ petition was filed as Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder, his wife and son died in the devastating fire in Uphaar Cinema in New Delhi on 13-6-1997. It is the case of petitioners that late Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder played a leading role by saving the life of 150 to 160 persons in that unfortunate tragedy. However, the respondents rejected the family pension as well as ordinary pension treating the death of Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military Service . Even the ordinary family pension claim of the parents was rejected on the ground that the Government of India has set up a mean limit of Rs. 2550/- per month with effect from 1st January, 1998 and thereby denied the ordinary family pension to the parents of Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended th...
Shri Prem Sagar Gupta (Deceased) Through Lrs Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi136; 109(2004)DLT534; 2004(72)DRJ681
J.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this petition the impugned order dated 7th October, 2003, passed by the learned ASJ, whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the evidence in rebuttal was declined has been challenged. So far as the right of the plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal after the closure of the evidence of defendants' on the issues onus of which was on the defendant is concerned this right is vested in the plaintiff by virtue of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, which reads as under:- ''3. Evidence where several issues---Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so p...
L.C. Gupta and ors. Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 109(2003)DLT491; 2004(72)DRJ687
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The petitioners, who are the members of the Managing Committee of the Capital Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. have approached this Court with the prayer that the orders dated 1.5.2003, 19.6.2003 and 20.6.2003 be set aside. They have also prayed that the petitioners are entitled to hold the office as the members of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 society for a period of 3 years from the date of their elections as per Bye-law 23(b) and Section 31(3) of the Act.2. It is also prayed that respondent No. 1, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 2, Assistant Registrar and respondent No. 4 the Election Officer of the Capital Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society be restrained from holding elections for electing the members of the Managing Committee.3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the writ petition are recapitulated as under:4. Admittedly on 2.12.2001, elections were held for constituting the entire Managing Committee ...
Narendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2594; 2004(72)DRJ620
J.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition for quashing of the FIR no.272/2001 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram under Sections 451, 323, 506, 509, 34 IPC arising out of disputes between the two neighbours, staying in the same premises. The complainant lodged a report that his wife and daughter were coming out for some work and after they came out of the house, the respondent Ashish Gosain was standing outside along with his driver and on seeing his daughter and wife started passing obscene comments. On hearing the noise he came outside the house and tried to stop them but both of them started beating him. They then forcibly entered his house and manhandled him. On seeing this his son telephoned the Police who reached there and registered the case under Sections 451, 323, 506 509 read with 34 IPC. 2. Since they have now amicably settled the disputes as according to the complainant due to some misunderstanding and on hearing the noise from outside he got infuriated and confronted the petitioner e...
Vijendera Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT925
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, Vijendera Kumar, has filed the present petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the respondents' action in evicting him from the official accommodation. Petitioner also seeks a mandamus to the respondents to allot him a house of his entitlement in BTPS Staff Colony, Badarpur, New Delhi and compensate him for the damages suffered. Exemplary costs are also sought.2. Petitioner was employed with National Power Training Institute (in short NPTI) under the Ministry of Power, Government of India and was posted at the Regional Power Training Institute (in short RPTI), Badarpur, New Delhi. Petitioner ' was promoted in the year 1997 as Deputy Director (Technical) 'and posted at the NPTI, Headquarters, Faridabad. Petitioner had been allotted accommodation in the BTPS Staff Colony at a monthly license fee. This license fee was initially Rs. 75/- per month and was raised to Rs. 110/- per month and then Rs. 167/- per month for the period November, 1992 to...
Pearey Lal and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Jamuna Properties (P) Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi126
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By Notification No. L-17015/1/2002-Jus. dated 18th July, 2003, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original Side of Delhi High Court has been increased from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs.2. The questions falling for consideration in this Execution Petition are :--(i) Whether as a result of the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction, the pending execution applications are liable to be transferred to the District Courts or not?(ii) In case, the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Court may suo motu in the exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 39, CPC can send the petition for execution to a subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction independently of the existence of circumstances specified in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 39, CPC? ,3. The suit had been filed for recovery of Rs. 14,38,480/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs thirty eight thousand and four hundred eighty only) against the defendants. Plaintiff had valued the ...
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. State Thru Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Del)607
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dt. 8th Nov., 2002, of the ACMM whereby the learned Magistrate has declined to discharge the accused of the offence punishable under Section 276C(1)/277 of the IT Act. It is argued by counsel that since the appellate authority has deleted the penalty no offence is made out under Section 276C(1)/277 of the IT Act.2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The submission by counsel does not find favor with this Court. The adjudication on the penalty cannot bind the criminal Court which is adjudicating on a charge under Section 276C(1)/277 which is quite different.3. CM(M) 713/2003 is dismissed....
Dr. J.K. JaIn and anr. Vs. N.D.M.C. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Reported in: 118(2005)DLT43
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been furnished with copies of the record filed by the NDMC leading to the order of demolition of the property in question. The application moved by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal in this regard was dismissed on the ground that the application is against the rules. The principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner should be apprised of the facts that led to the order of demolition. The matter has been delayed unnecessarily by not furnishing copy of record. Petition is allowed. Since the original record has been filed with the Tribunal, petitioner shall be allowed to take the photocopies of the same in the presence of the official of NDMC and Ahlmad at his own costs.Petition is disposed of....
Rajdoot Paints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT230TriDel
1. As in these thirteen appeals, eight filed by the assessees against different Orders-in-Original and five filed by Revenue - the issues involved are interlinked, these are being taken for decision together.2.1 Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that all the eight assessees manufacture various brands of paints and varnishes, having their own separate factory, and avail of the benefit of small-scale exemption Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 and 1/93-C.E., dated 1-3-1993; that M/s. Rajdoot Paints Ltd. (Rajdoot in short) were initially a marketing company and traded in paints; that due to increase in sales a manufacturing unit was set up mainly for the manufacture of dry distempers and primers; that they subsequently started manufacturing paints; that they, being a marketing company, also purchase paints of various brands from manufacturers, who are availing the benefit of SSI exemption; that different show cause notices dated 2-11-1995 were issued to all th...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »