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.
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Tuftween Petrochemical Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT409TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether product manufactured by M/s. Tuftween Petrochemical Ltd., is classifiable under Heading 27.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by it or under Heading 38.14 as claimed by the respondents.2. We heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR for Revenue and Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate for the respondents.3. The impugned product is known as organic composite solvent, which is obtained by mixing of raw materials in various ratios under room temperature and pressure in the tankers of the consignee itself through pumping from the raw material storage tanks. The Deputy Commissioner, under the Order-in-Original No. 36/02, dated 20-9-2002 classified the product under subheading 2710.19 of the Tariff and confirmed the demand of duty on the ground that the impugned product is a combination of inputs of Chapter 27 or Benzene under Chapter 29 in variable ratio.However, on appeal, filed by the respondents, t...
Cce Vs. Ganpati Tar Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(118)LC362Tri(Delhi)
1. In these two appeals, filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether it is open to the respondents to avail or not to avail the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification No. l/93-CE dated 28.2.1993.2. When the matter was called, no one was present for the respondents nor was there any request to adjourn the matter in spite of notice issued to them. We also heard Smt. Charul Barnwal, learned SDR for the Revenue and perused the records. It is the contention of the Revenue that exemption under Notification No. 1/93 CE was available to both the respondents and instead of availing of exemption under the said Notification, they cleared the goods on payment of duty at various rates after availing the MODVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs.She had also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed number of decisions of the Tribunal against which a Reference Application has been filed by the Revenue and has also observed that filing of a Reference Application does n...
Mukut Pipes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT345TriDel
1. In these three appeals, the issue involved is whether M/s. Mukut Pipes Ltd. and M/s. Surindra Engg. Co. Ltd. are related persons in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Mukut Pipes Ltd., appellants No. 1 manufacture ERW/SAW/MS Pipes and M/s. Surindra Engg. Co. Ltd., Appellant No. 2, manufacture MS Pipe with -- location units; that the Central Excise officers searched the premises of the Appellants No. 1 on 16-1-2001 and found that they were clearing MS Pipes of various dimensions to the various sites of M/s. Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and Pimpri Chinch-wad Municipal Corporation in the account of the Appellant No. 2, on the basis of purchase Order raised by the Appellant No. 2 from their Head Office at Mumbai; that it is the case of the Revenue that Appellant No. 2 had raised purchased Orders in favour of the Appellant No. 1 at a lesser price than the original contracted price and that both the Appellants have cro...
Smt. Usha Chopra Vs. State and anr. and S.i. S.D. Misra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT91; 2004(77)DRJ734
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The petitioner was summoned as an accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' only) on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and some others. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint. A reading of paragraph 5 of the complaint as well as the statement of the Complainant as CW-1 dose not disclose that the petitioner made the objectionable comments/remarks in ''public view''. The presence of the co-accused only of the petitioner does not constitute ''public view''within the meaning of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In a recent judgment of this Court in Daya Bhatnagar and Ors. v. State; reported in 109 (2004)Delhi Law Times 915, the words ''public view'' as used in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act were interpreted and it was held that the ''public view'' means that persons from public should be p...
Baldev Kishan Vs. Basanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT272
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. MAC. Appeal No. 284 of 2004 is directed against judgment and order dated 18.3.2004 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') in Suit No. 712 of 1989 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent for the death of Ram Surat Singh in an accident that occurred on 15.7.1989. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are as follows :''Claimants in the claim petition had pleaded that on 15.7.89 at around 9 p.m. deceased Ram Surat Singh was coming towards Palam Colony on a bicycle. As he reached T point on Palam Road near Indian Oil Depot, a scooter driven by respondent No. 1 at a very high speed and driven in a negligent manner struck cyclist when victim was taking right side turn towards Palam Colony. Victim sustained multiple injuries and was removed to Safdarjung hospital and finally he died on 18.7.89. Cause of accident was a negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 ...
Mishri Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT160
Mukundakam Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2nd December, 1982 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force whereby the petitioner was removed from his service and also against the order passed by the appellate authority on 16th April, 1983 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. A departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 34 CISF Rules, 1969 on the charges which appear in the impugned order. 3. The petitioner has annexed with the writ petition only a statement of articles of charges and the entire charge-sheet is not part of the records of the case. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry instituted against the petitioner. 4. During the course of the inquiry proceedings the petitioner submitted a request for change of the Enquiry Officer, which prayer, however, was rejected by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner took part in the aforesaid inquiry proceedings ...
Young Women's Christian Association of India through Its National Gene ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: 21(2004)DLT115; (2005)ILLJ643Del; 2006(1)SLJ97(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The principal question that arises in this case is whether the Respondent is a workman. There is no dispute that if it is held that the Respondent is a workman, then the termination of her services is contrary to law. The second question that may arise consequentially, is what back wages is the Respondent entitled to.2. The Respondent was employed by the Petitioner with effect from 16th April 1987 and was regularized on 1st November 1987. Her job title was 'Catering Supervisor' (apparently redesignated as Kitchen Supervisor) and her initial salary was Rs. 1500/- per month, the last drawn salary being Rs. 2176/- per month. She was responsible to the Administrative Officer and was required to supervise and control the kitchen and food service staff; she was expected to co-ordinate with other supervisors and junior managers. As regards her hours of work, it was mentioned in her appointment letter that 'completion of work and not 'hours' spent is more important.' Her s...
Mohinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Sardar Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC4
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th August, 1986 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Suit No. 140/1979 involving the death of Harcharan Singh in an accident that took place on 3rd September, 1979. The Tribunal vide its aforesaid order has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- to appellant No. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- to appellant No. 2 together with interest @9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of this case, as been noted by the Tribunal, are as under : 'a claim petition filed filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur and Gurveen Singh for grant of compensation on account of death of S. Harcharan Singh caused in the accident. Harcharan Singh deceased was 31 years old at the time of his death and was working as a Supervisor and was drawing a salary of Rs. 1350 P.M. and Rs. 500/- from the private work. The facts pleaded in the petition in brief are that on 3rd September 1979 at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased was going on G.T. Road on his cor...
Naresh Mohan Vs. Urmila Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi225; 115(2004)DLT200; (2005)139PLR24
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. RC-REV 5 of 2004 is directed against order dated 4.4.2003 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 130/2003 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 25.1.2003 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in M-1/2000 dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, which application, in turn, was preferred against order dated 17.11.1998 passed in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent control Act (for short 'Act'). The Additional Rent controller had dismissed the application on the ground that the same was barred by time. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, are as follows :'a petition u/s 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act was filed against the respondent on the averments that house No. 595-B (Old No.), 595-B/T-751 (New), Gali No. 38, Onkar Nagar 'C', Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035 consisting of one room, one kitchen, ...
Shri Anil Sharma Vs. Wiezmani Consultants and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC308; 115(2004)DLT154
Mukul Mudgal , J. IA 4204/04 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay)Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay in moving the application, IA.No. 4203/2004 for setting aside the Order dated 9th July, 2003 and for restoration of the IA.No. 11345/2001 and for setting aside the decree passed on 29th August, 2003 in the main Suit No. 2675/2000 stands condoned. IA.No. 4203/2004 1. This is an application by the defendants under Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short the `CPC') to set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 29th August, 2003 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants under Order xxxvI as the leave to defend application filed by the defendant went unrepresented as his counsel did not attend Court and was accordingly dismissed on 9th July, 2003. As a notice under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC for execution of the decree was found pasted on 19th May, 2004, the defendant/applicant came to know about the ex-parte decree passed aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »