Delhi Court October 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.
Century Cement Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT360TriDel
1. The appeal is directed against denial of Cenvat credit on certain components spares and accessories brought by the appellant manufacturer for its Wagon loading machine. The impugned order denied credit on the basis that in the same appellant's case with regard to the same goods this Tribunal had held that credit was not available {Century Cement v.CCE, Raipur 2. While learned D.R. pointed out that an earlier order would be binding to the Tribunal, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the earlier order was passed in terms of the rule, as it existed at that time. It is being pointed out that the definition of capital goods has been completely changed under Rule 57AA with effect from 1st April 2000. Under the new Rule the requirement is that capital goods should fall under the specified classifications (Chapter 84 in the present case) and that the machine as well as the spares should be "used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products". The learned Counsel has p...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. S.L. Trehan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT429TriDel
1. Both the Revenue and the transporter are in appeal against the same order. Accordingly, both appeals are heard together and are disposed of under this common order. Material facts relevant to this case are that Truck No. RJ-14-IG-3147 of Rajdhani Express Transporter Co. was intercepted when it was carrying goods from Delhi near Chandwaji 40 K.M. from Jaipur on 29-6-2002 by Customs Authorities and goods valued about Rs. 10 Lakhs seized. About Rs. 9 Lakhs worth of the goods appeared to be of Indian make and the remaining of foreign make. They were confiscated in adjudication by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The appellant took up the matter in Appeal before the Commissioner appeals, Jaipur. Me held that there is no case made out against the goods which are of Indian Origin. In respect of foreign goods, the Commissioner held that the goods had been notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962 which had the effect of shifting the burden of proof as to legal imp...
Container Corporation of India Vs. Dcit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD333(Delhi)
1. The only issue arising in this appeal is whether the assessee could claim depreciation Under Section 32 by moving an application for rectification Under Section 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking which filed its original return of income on 31^st December, 1991 declaring total income of Rs. 7,39,63,395/-. The original assessment Under Section 143(3) was made on 12^th October, 1993 accepting the returned income of the assessee.Subsequently, notice Under Section 148 was issued on 21^st September, 1994. In the course of such re-assessment proceedings, the assessee noticed that it forgot to claim depreciation in respect of assets owned by it and accordingly, made an application Under Section 154 on 18.11.96, which was filed in the office of AO on 22.11.96. The contents of the said application are being reproduced as under: "The income-tax case for the asstt. year 1991-92 of our company is at present pending for assessment Under Section 147 of the...
Smt. Kanta Bhandari and Anrs. Vs. Sh. Karam Ellahi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC891; 2006ACJ429; 114(2004)DLT809
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 16/1986 is directed against the judgment and order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Petition No.294/1978 whereby the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 20.8.1985 has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- together with interest @ 6% on account of the death of Ms.Renu Bhandari, a 17 year old girl studying in B.A.Ist Year.2. The facts of the case are that:'It is stated that on 9.3.78 at about 3.15 p.m. the deceased Miss Renu Bhandari was going sitting on the pillion seat of two wheeler scooter driven by Shri Ashwani on Satyawanti Marg and at a slow speed when truck no. USL-9571 driven rashly, recklessly, and negligently by respondent no.1 Shri Karam Ellahi came from the opposite direction and knocked down the said two wheeler scooter. As a result of the impact the deceased and Shri Ashwani Kumar fell down Along with the scooter. In fact both the deceased were run over by the said truck and they died.2. It is further stated that the deceased Renu Bhan...
Satnam Kaur and ors. Vs. Shinghara Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC672; 118(2005)DLT17
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 48/1988 is directed against the Judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi in Suit No.42/1979 whereby the tribunal vide its order dated 11.9.1987 awarded a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annu m.2. Brief facts of the case are that''.A claim petition is filed for claiming compensation on account of the death of Shri Surinder Singh in a road side Vehicular accident. A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has been claimed. The facts as pleaded in the petition in brief are that Shri Surinder Singh was a young person of 28 years and a three wheeler driver by profession. He was earning Rs.750/- per month. On 3.12.78 at about 9.55 p.m., the petitioner parked his three wheeler scooter and went to a factory situated at 63, Najafgarh Road, Delhi when he was near the gate, a truck bearing No.DHG 3700 being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner in due course of his employment under Respondent no.2 was coming out of the...
Directorate of Revenue Int. Vs. Vinod Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT475
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order date 19.12.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, New Delhi by which the prayer of the respondent-accused for sending a second sample of the contraband in question to another laboratory for Chemical analysis was allowed and for this purpose, the case property allegedly recovered from the appellant was ordered to be produced in the Court.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the records.Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only), the respondent-accused has no right to get another sample tested from another laboratory and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, he relies upon a Supreme Court judgment in 'Commissioner of Customs Vs . M/s. Punj...
Digipulse India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.K. Corp. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT506; 2004(77)DRJ438
H.R. Malhotar, J.1. This order shall deal with an application of the plaintiff made under Order 24 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking directions to the defendant company to deposit the amount in terms of Order 24 Rule 1 CPC.2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant company for recovery of sum of Rs.84,40,704.90 arising out of commercial transaction between the two. The plaintiff company is carrying on the business of trading, selling, exporting electrical and electronic goods and their components and also manufactures audio cassette tapes and supplies the tapes to various companies including Philips India Ltd.3. The plaintiff company had entered into an agreement with the Philips India Ltd. agreeing to supply Magnetic Tapes for manufacture of audio cassette tapes of a specific requirement. The plaintiff company came to know that the defendant company was in the business of manufacture and supply of such Magnetic Tapes and, thereforee, the plaintiff co...
Sh. Rajinder JaIn Vs. Sh. Rakesh Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT723
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The question that arises in these Petitions is whether the Court possesses the power to appoint an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes subsisting between the parties/brothers. Mr. Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Court continues to retain the power to make an appointment even in the face of the refusal by the named Arbitrator, Manubhawati the mother of the parties, to discharge these functions. Mr. Kaul, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent however, contend to the contrary that the Arbitration Clause contemplates adjudication of disputes only by the mother of the parties hereto. On her failure to perform this duty the compact to have disputes settled through arbitration perishes completely.2. The Arbitration Clause reads thus:XIII. That in the event of any dispute arising out of this settlement, in that eventuality in case the dispute pertains to Shri Rajender Kumar Jain, the party of the second part, then in that eventua...
Howna Ram (Decd.) thr. LR'S Vs. Purshottam Dass and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT386
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 2003, of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) in RCA No. 51/2002, which appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 5th August, 2002, whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has allowed the petition filed by the landlord by holding that the tenant had sublet/assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the suit premises rented out to him by the landlord. The learned Tribunal vide its aforesaid judgment has dismissed the appeal by concurring with the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Rent Controller.2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :'2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners are that the respondent No. 1 Howna Ram was inducted as a tenant in respect of one Tin-shed and open courtyard total area measuring 90 sq. yards premises No. 499-B 1A (old No.) ...
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Arvind Kumar Agarwal an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC636; 118(2005)DLT4
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM APPL.No.8212/2004 (for restoration)Heard counsel for the appellant. Cause shown is sufficient. MAC.APP.184/2004 and CM APPL.Nos. 5962-5964/2004 are restored to their original number and number. Application is allowed and disposed of.2. CM APPL.No.5964/2004 (for exemption)Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.3. CM APPL. No.5963/2004 (for condensation of delay)Delay is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of.4. MAC.APP. 184/2004 and CM APPL.No. 5962/2004 :This appeal is directed against the Award dated 14th August, 2003 of the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Suit No. 248/2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,74,000/- together with interest @12% per annum from the date of the petition till 31.3.2001 and thereafter interest @9% per annum till the date of actual payment.5. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Tribunal, are as under :'On 25.1.1993 at about 10...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »