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.
Smt. Harsh Syal and anr. Vs. Asha Rani Syal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC11
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. CM. 8/2003: This is an application for condensation of delay in filing the appeal. Delay condoned. The application is disposed of. 2. FAO 7/2003: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.4.2002 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No.407/94 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,20,000/- on account of death of Sanjay Syal being involved in an accident on 1.5.1994 while driving on his motor cycle. 3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are as follows:- ''The case of P1 who is the wife, P2 who is the son and P3 and P4 who are the parents of late Shri Sanjiv Sayal is that on 1.5.94 at about 11.40 a.m. Sanjiv Sayal was traveling on his motor cycle no.DL-4S-7375 and waiting for the green signal at the Dist. Centre red light crossing within the jurisdiction of P.S.Vikas Puri, Delhi. It is stated that R1 came driving the red line bus no.DL-1P-0818 plying on route no.851 sharply, rashly and negligently at a high s...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Gordhan Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 119(2005)DLT318; 2005(80)DRJ654; [2005(105)FLR1035]; 2006(1)SLJ362(Delhi)
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Delhi Transport Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for seeking approval of the Court for its action for removing the workman from service. This application of the Corporation was dismissed and approval prayed for decline vide order dated 24.3.2003 of the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the present writ petition, the Corporation thus challenges the legality and correctness of this order.2. According to the case of the Management of the Corporation, Gordhan Dass was working as a Conductor with the Corporation. He was on duty on Bus No. 6261 on Route No. 094 on 20.7.2003. On that date the checking scott, upon checking the bus found that the 5 tickets were found to be down side but the bus was coming to Sultan Puri from Railway Station on up side round. On verification of the waybill of the Conductor it was found that tickets No. 944/10860 was closed from p...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Inchcape India (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)290; [2005]273ITR92(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the order made by the Tribunal in ITA No. 3905/Del/1999 for the asst. yr. 1996-97 decided on 5th June, 2002, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. Mittal Corporation .2. Against the said decision dt. 5th June, 2002, the Revenue preferred appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Court framed the question as under:'Whether the assessed has fulfilled the conditions as prescribed under s. 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, to be eligible for deduction ?'3. This question was framed as the decisions rendered by the Tribunal in various appeals were challenged before this Court and, thereforee, similar question was framed. At the outset, we may say that the Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Mittal Corporation (supra) against which the Revenue preferred an appeal which has been decided by this, Court on 1st Nov., 2004, i.e., ITA No. 15 of 2004 titled as CIT v. Mittal Corp...
Meryfur Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR275(Delhi); 118(2005)DLT33; 2005(81)DRJ307
R.C. Jain, J.1. Parties entered into a Rate contract bearing Nos. ES-3/RC-1432/PVC/ALUM CABLES/II/85-86/33/MERYFUR/1337/COAD dated 17.2.1986, ES-3/RC-1431/PVC/ALUM CABLES/I/85-86/33/MERYFUR/ COAD/1358 dated 31.1.1986, and ES-3/RC-1430/UGAC/85-86/III/ MERYFUR/1419/Coad dated 19.3.1986, for the supply of PVC cables. Clause 6 of the Conditions of the Contract provided for the payment of Excise Duty by the purchaser. The said clause reads as under:'Excise Duty: The prices are exclusive of Excise Duty. The present rate of Excise Duty on cost of Stores applicable in this case is 10% plus 5% E.D. on the basic ED. Any change in Excise Duty arising out of (a) Method of assessment, (b) Tariff Value and (e) Ad valorem rates will be to purchaser's account.2. It is the admitted case of the parties that after entering into the said contract, a major change was brought about in the excise policy of the Government and MODVAT scheme was introduced in terms of which the rate of excise duty on such type ...
Amritsar Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT101TriDel
1. Common issue is involved in both the appeals. Therefore they are being taken up together.2. The appellant made import of original Woollen Mix Hosiery Rags and in the Bill of Entry, declared their value of the goods 0.24 US $ per Kg. This value was not exempted by the Revenue authorities and value was enhanced as follows :- (a) Original Rags US $ 0.32 /Kg. CIF (b) Unicolour Rags US $ 0.37 /Kg. CIF (c) Commercial All Wool US $ 0.70 /Kg. CIF 2. The contention of the appellant is that they are engaged in the manufacture of blankets and these hosiery rags are used in the manufacture of blankets. The value was enhanced without any evidence.Adjudicating authority simply mentioned that rags are being imported at Mumbai Port as well as other Custom House at the higher value than the declaration made by the appellant.3. We find that the adjudicating authority in the adjudication order simply enhanced the value on the ground that some imports of woollen synthetic hosiery rags at Mumbai Port a...
Jindal Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT508TriDel
1. In this appeal, which has been filed against the impugned order-in-appeal, the dispute relates to the refund claim lodged by the appellants.2. The facts are not much in dispute. After the determination of the ACP, as the appellants were working under the Compound Levy Scheme, at the relevant time, they paid the duty for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998. However, they simultaneously also lodged the claim for abatement of the duty on account of closure of their factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abatement claim vide order dated 12.11.1998. Thereafter, the duty liability of the appellants was worked out to Rs. 9,35,505/-, whereas they had already paid duty of Rs. 11,30,800/- 3. The appellants accordingly filed the refund claim for the refund of the excise duty amount of Rs. 1,95,295/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim through the order-in-Original on two grounds; firstly, that it was time barred having been filed in November, 1998 whereas the duty pa...
integ Electronics Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT163; 2005(79)DRJ36
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the adjudicating authority vide order dated 28.05.2004 held that the assessed is liable to pay certain amounts, as indicated in the order, the total of which comes to about Rs. 90 lakhs, including duty and penalty. Against the said order of the adjudicating authority, an appeal was preferred and Along with it an application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is also made. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeals, Delhi-II vide order No. 18/2004, dated 24.08.2004, a copy of which is produced at Annexure P-1 at page 24, inter alia, observed that ''the appellants have not pleaded for any financial hardship'' an ultimately held that the appellant company shall make a pre-deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs recoverable from them and compliance report was ordered to be produced within 30 days. It was observed that if there was non-complianc...
Smt. Deepa Bajwa Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT202; 2004(77)DRJ725
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with a prayer to quash F.I.R. No. 246/2001 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' only). 2. The petitioner prays for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R. mainly on the ground that in the complaint lodged by the complainant on 19th April, 2001, it was nowhere mentioned that the petitioner/accused knew that the complainant belonged to the community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. When no F.I.R. could be registered in view of this deficiency, opinion was taken from the prosecution Branch and thereafter a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded to the effect that the petitioner new that the Complainant belonged to the said Caste. Thereafter, on 14th June, 2001, the F.I.R. in question on the basis of complaint dated 19th ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Supreme Paper Mills Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR123(Delhi)
R.C. Jain, J. is 1029/2004 in OMP 163/2001 1. This is an application under Order 7, Rule 10, CPC made on behalf of the respondent herein for return of the petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking extension of time for making the award by the arbitrator. The application is opposed on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Calcutta High Court, which made the reference to arbitral tribunal, had no jurisdiction to do so because it was not a Competent Court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. 2. I have heard Mr. Dalip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Khorana, learned counsel for the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.3. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the disputes/differences having arisen between the parties in relation to a contract of supply, the respondent herein had filed...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mittal Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Del)1; [2005]272ITR87(Delhi)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. These appeals, under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are placed before the court, which are for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1997-98 and the lead case is for the assessment year 1992-93 being I. T. A. No. 15 of 2001.2. The following question of law, as framed on July 18, 2001, is required to be answered by the court :'Whether the assessed has fulfilled the conditions as prescribed under Section 80O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to be eligible for deduction ?'3. The assessed received commission income of Rs. 92,59,066 as buying agents of foreign enterprises, namely, M/s. G. J. Coles (P.) Ltd., Australia, and M/s. K. Mart of U.SA. The assessed claimed deduction under Section 80O of the Act on this commission income. The assessed explained that it was entitled to deduction under Section 80O of the Act as : (i) it is a registered partnership firm and resident in India ; (ii) commission has been received in convertible fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »