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.
Dcm Financial Services Ltd. Vs. National Building Const. Corp. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT731; 2005(79)DRJ29
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Vakalatanama shall be filed during the course of the day.2. In this Petition it has been prayed that the arbitral proceedings before Shri A.K. Pruthi should be stayed on the grounds that the Respondent/NBCC has subsequently appointed a different person to arbitrate upon the Claims raised by them. My attention has been drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhatia International vs . Bulk Trading S.A. and Another, : [2002]2SCR411 which pointedly states that a stay of arbitral proceedings is not contemplated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Where a challenge has been made to the authority of the Arbitrator, that has to be ventilated before the Arbitrator himself who has to come to a decision under Section 13. Where he does not reuse himself, the remedy of the Applicant is to await the final Award and raise these objections at that stage.3. In this Petition these questions d...
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. Mitshi Udyog and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT700
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This matter has been heard for over one hour. Judgment Debtors No.2 to 7 are stated to be partners of Judgment Debtor No.1. These Judgment Debtors are closely related to Shri Manmohan Seth, Judgment Debtor No.7, who had earlier filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for setting aside the ex parte decree. This application has been rejected by my learned Brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K.Mahajan by the Order dated 20.11.2003 with which I respectfully concur.2. The Plaintiff has placed on record the Affidavit of compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC which states that the Plaint and documents filed along with it had been dispatched to the Judgment Debtors by registered AD post. It is true that although ordered to do so, service of summons in the suit have not been attempted by registered AD post. No registered AD covers had been filed. However, applications were filed ...
Kushalpal Singh and anr. Vs. Jagmohan Khanna
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 1(2004)DLT115
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.1998 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in RCA No.25/1998 whereby the Tribunal has declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that it does not fall within the scope of Section 105 CPC as it is not an appeal against the final order or decree and, thereforee, not maintainable.2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi are as follows:-'.....that the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises bearing No. E-24, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi - 110 048 on the grounds that the same are required by them for use as residence for themselves and their family members bonafide. Leave to defend was since not contested, the same was allowed. In his present application under VI Rule 17 CPC respondent tenant sought sought the substitution of para 4 of his written statement as under:-'That either of the petitioners have no locus standi to file th...
D.D.A. Vs. Pandit Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT508; 2004(77)DRJ542
Vijender Jain, J.1. This application for condensation of delay has been filed by DDA for condoning the delay of 421 days in filing the application under Order 9 rule 9 for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal dated 5th December, 2001. Mr. Anil Sapra, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that appeal was filed on 10th August, 2001 when it was adjourned to await decision of learned Single Judge on claim no. 11. The matter was adjourned to 26th August, 2001 and thereafter the matter was further adjourned to 24th September, 2001. In the meanwhile, Counsel appearing for the DDA resigned and it was informed to Hon'ble Court on 24th September, 2001, thereforee, the matter was adjourned to 5th December, 2001. Though the matter was entrusted to Shri Sushil Salwan Advocate on 13th November, 2001, but nobody appeared and the appeal was dismissed on 5th December, 2001. That the counsel did not take any note of the fact that the appeal was dismissed and on 26th August, 2002 that...
Pearl Fasteners Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT515
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26.9.1998 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in S.No.519/95 whereby the learned Judge has made the award of the Arbitrator, Rule of the Court.2. Facts of the case are that the Railways by invoking Clause 2900 of the Indian Standard Condition Contract approached the General Manager for appointment of sole arbitrator to settle the disputes having arisen between parties.3. The Arbitrator upon considering the claims and counter-claims returned an award dated 14.6.1993, which award was sought to be made rule of court before the Additional District Judge in Suit No.519/95. Various objections were raised before the learned District Judge inter alias that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings and the award was improperly procured. There was no contract between the Objector and Union of India. Union of India had never purchased hundred metric tonnes fish-bolts net at the risk and cost of the Objector ...
Vimal Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC342
1. The issues involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Vimal Textile Mills, are whether they were using power in the processing of the fabrics, whether Notification No. 35/99-CE, dated 4.8.99 which amended Notification No. 5/99-CE, is applicable retrospectively and whether the Proviso to Section 11 A(l) of the Central Excise Act is invocable for demanding Central Excise duty for the extended period.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants process cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act since 1984; that they undertake bleaching, dyeing and printing on the cotton fabrics; that proceedings were initiated by show cause notice dated 2.7.1999 proposing to deny the benefit of the exemption on the ground that they were using ceiling fans in the halls for drying the fabrics, using motor for drawing water for use in the factory and using power for stirring of chemicals; that the Commissioner, under the impugned order...
Vinod Arora Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT353TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed Sh. Vinod Arora, is whether the goods seized from his business premises are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.2. We heard Sh. M. Venkatraman, learned Advocate for the appellants, and Sh. S.M. Tata, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue.3. In this appeal, the officers of Customs Department searched the business premises of M/s. Gourmet Electronics and seized DVDs, LDs, Perfumes and miscellaneous goods of foreign origin valued at Rs. 4,58,800/-. Shri Rakesh Kumar, who was present in the premises, could not produce any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to prove the legal import/possession/storage of the said goods. The appellant proprietor, in his statement dated 18-10-2000, has deposed that LDs. belonged to his brother Sh. Rajan Arora, who was running business earlier and, therefore, he was unaware of the procurement of the said LDs. About DVDs, he produced some baggage receipts. Regarding items under seizure, the appellant stated that t...
Dalmia Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(117)LC973Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by M/s. Dalmia Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the transport charges collected by them are includible in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by them.2. We heard Sh. K.K. Anand, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.M. Tata, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue.3. When the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants, they found that they were charging freight @ 6 per cent of the assessable value from their customers which was not included for determining the assessable value of their final products. It was also observed by the officers that there was a difference in the freight charged by them from their customers and the freight actually incurred by them. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 9.11.1999 was issued to them for recovering the duty short paid on the element of freight recovered in excess of the actual freight incurred by them. The Additional Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 3...
Cce Vs. Kraftech Products Inc.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC169
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the Central Excise duty is payable by M/s. Kraftech Products Inc. on the assessable value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as claimed by Respondents or with reference to M.R.P. under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri S.C. Pushkarna,learned D.R., submitted that the Respondents manufacture 'Godrej Permanent Powder Hair Dye' and "Godrej Kali Mehndi'; that they were packing these products in multi-piece packages and were clearing to their sole buyer M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd.; that a show cause notice date 13.7.2000 was issued to the Respondents for assessing the multi-piece packages under the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the ground that multi-piece packages even if having the total weight of contents of all commodities less than 10 gms., required a declaration under Rule 17 of the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Ru...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Hotline Cpt Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT313TriDel
1. In this appeal, the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority and allowed the refund claim pertaining to interest, of the respondents.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The respondents warehoused the imported goods (parts of the colour picture tubes) after executing the necessary bond. The cleared the goods through various Bills of Entry from the warehouse during the period Jan. to Feb. 2004 after paying the duty along with the interest. The interest was paid by them for having kept the goods in the warehouse for a period of more than 30 days as prescribed under Section 61 of the Customs Act as amended vide Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. (N.T.) dated 22-5-2001. Thereafter, they lodged the claim for the refund of the interest on the ground that same was not payable by them as when they warehoused the goods, the period prescribed was six months during which they ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »