Delhi Court November 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.
Mahalaxmi International Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT284TriDel
2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of goods, which were declared in the Bill of Entry as micro assembly classifiable under Heading No. 8542.50 of Custom Tariff. The goods were cleared after assessment by the proper officer thereafter show cause notice was issued to the appellant oh the ground that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 8473.21 of Customs Tariff.3. The contention of the appellant is that the goods in question were examined before clearance and the proper officer assessed the goods and duty was paid accordingly. The contention is that the adjudicating authority after taking into consideration of some other goods held that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 8471.20 of the Customs Tariff. The contention is that no sample was retained by the Custom authorities, therefore, the issue of classification which was decided b...
Kay Cee Electricals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT136TriDel
1. In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the impugned order in appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order in original of the adjudicating authority which confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 56,752/- with equal amount of penalty on the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants are only job worker and they receive the raw material under Rule 57AC read with Notification No. 214/86 under which the manufacturer/supplier of the raw material furnished an undertaking to discharge the duty on the finished goods after receipt of the same from the job worker.Therefore, no duty demand could be raised against the appellants specially when there is no evidence on record to prove that the supplier of the raw material had denied the receipt of finished goods after the job work from the appellants. The Counsel has also contended that even otherwise there was no shortage of finished goods as in the RG. I as recorded in the panch...
Jheel Kurenja Milk Producers' Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs. D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT300
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. In the year 1995 D.D.A initiated proceedings for eviction of persons alleged to be in unauthorised possession of land, detailed in the noticees, situate in the revenue estate of village Chiraga (South) and Jheel Kurenja. Notice(s) reads as under:NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AND CLAUSE (b)(ii) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 4 OF THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS ACT 1971)Shri Gyasi S/o NyadarFile No.EV/Chiraga(South) dt. 31.3.95WHEREAS I, the undersigned am of the opinion on the grounds specified below that you are in unauthorised occupation of the Public Premises mentioned in the Schedule below and that you should be evicted from the said premises.GROUNDSThe land mentioned in the schedule below belongs to Union of India and is under the Management and control of the Delhi Development Authority.Now, thereforee, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the P.P Act, I hereby call upon you to show cause on or before ........why such an or...
Jagdish and ors. Vs. Dda and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT391; 2005(79)DRJ37
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. 9 writ petitioners have initiated a joint action by and under WP(C) No.5060/2000 praying that this court be pleased to:'a) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioners from the possession of their agricultural land, situated on the river bank (details shown in para 3 of the petition; andb) direct the Respondents not to destroy the standing crops of the petitioners and not raise any construction over the land occupied and in possession of the petitioner during the pendency of the Writ Petition.'2. It is averred that Delhi Peasants Co-operative Multipurpose Society Ltd. was allotted 13,343 bigha and 3 biswa of land by Delhi Improvement Trust on the bank of river Yamuna. The society, in turn, parceled out land to its members. Being members of the soceity, petitioners were put in possession of the land detailed in para 3 of the petition.3. In the year 1991, DDA as successor in interest of the Impr...
Nb. Subedar (Skt) Jasbir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT351
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents giving him only notional promotion to the rank of Nb. Subedar with effect from 1.11.1999 and denying him the arrears of difference of pay and allowances from the said date in the said rank.2. The petitioner herein was enrolled in the Indian Army in the rank of Sepoy on 26.8.1981 and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Naik and Havildar with effect from 1.4.1985 and 1.1.1988 respectively. Thereafter the petitioner was also detailed for the courses prescribed for the promotion to the rank of Nb. Subedar and the petitioner successfully completed the course and became eligible for the promotion to the rank of Nb. Subedar in the year 1996. The petitioner, however, did not and could not earn the two regimental annual confidential reports which is one of the criteria to earn promotion to the said rank. In order to enable the petitioner to earn the said criteria for promotion...
Shri Mokham Singh Vs. Shri Mohd. Khurshid and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT444; 2005(79)DRJ677
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of first floor and barsati floor/servant quarter of premises bearing No. B-171, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi and is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the ARC') dated 26.09.2002 allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 for bona fide requirement of the premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act').2. The petition for eviction was filed by respondent No. 1, co-owner of the property, as far back in July, 1989. The premises were stated to be let out for residential purposes where the petitioner was residing with his family members. The property was originally owned by Shri Shyam Mohan Mehra and was sold vide sale deed dated 13.11.1981 to respondent No. 1 along with respondents No. 2 to 6. The premises were stated to be required bona fide for respondent No. 1 for himself and his ...
Smt. Pushpa Dwivedi Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT389; 2005(79)DRJ292
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner, widow of Mr.Rajesh Narain, Ex. Constable, has filed this writ petition, seeking lump sum Ex- gratia payment of Rs.5 lacs for the members of the bereaved family. Petitioner's husband late Mr.Rajesh Narain was a Constable in Delhi Police with Badge No.2092/NW. It is the petitioner's case that her husband was posted at P.S. Mangolpuri as a Beat Officer. He met with an accident during night patrolling duty. The face of the petitioner's husband was found drowned in muddy water in a pit and his scooter was found with the running engine facing the direction of Police Station. Petitioner claims that her husband was going for patrol duty from his house to report to the Police Station, when this episode happened. The cause of death was given as death due to 'Asphysia due to blockage of respiratory tract by muddy water'. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in suppo...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Iisco and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC862; 117(2005)DLT458
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 14.5.1999 of the Railway Claims Tribunal in TA I/229/90 whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 17,857.97 paise to the application with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10% per annum and proportionate cost for short fall in the goods, namely, ribbed bars 16/20 mm dia under Invoice No. 87, Railway Receipt No. 609992 dated 7.5 1983 Ex SCOB.2. Facts of the case are as follows:-''This application has been filed by the applicant for recovery of a compensation amount of Rs. 18,978.88 paise from the respondent. The applicants case is that they booked a consignment consisting of ribbed bars 16/20 mm dia under invoice No. 87 Railway Receipt No. 609992 dated 7.5.1983 Ex. SCOB siding, Burnpur to IISCO siding, Okhla, New Delhi and the said consignment was loaded in wagon No. SE 49718, that when the consignment was made available for delivery at the destination there was shortage and the respondent refused to give de...
Skyline Engineering (India) Private Limited Vs. Girnar Fibres Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT660; 2005(79)DRJ474
Mukul Mudgal, J.IA. No. 11792/99(under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of delay)Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay in filing the application(IA. No. 11793/99) under Order IX Rule 13 CPC stands condoned. is stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.IA.No. 11793/991. This application on behalf of the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeks setting aside/recalling the Order dated 22nd September, 1999. 2. On 1st November, 2004, the following order was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi sending back the matter to this Court on the ground that the IA. No. 11793/99 seeks the recall of the Order dated 22nd September, 1999, appointing an arbitrator:-'IAs 11792(Under Section 5 Limit Act), 11793(O IX 13), 11794/99(stay) in Arb Petition 177/1998 Through application being is No. 11793/99, petitioner seeks recalling of the Order dated 22.9.1999.A perusal of the records show that the order dated 22.9.1999 was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal in the m...
Airports Authority of India Workers' Union Vs. Airports Authority of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT280; 2005(80)DRJ371
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. FAO 325 of 2004 seeks to challenge the order dated 8.11.2004 of the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 235/2004 whereby the learned Additional District Judge has disposed of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants herein and also two separate applications under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of stay filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional District Judge, are as follows :'The plaintiff is an association of workers of Airport Authority of India. Airport Authority of India is Defendant No. 1 in the present suit. There are total five unions of the workers of Airport Authority of India. One of these five unions is the plaintiff herein and the other four unions are Defendants No.3 to 6 in the case. Out of the five unions of workers existing in the Airport Authority of India, only one of them is a recognised union and the other...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »