Delhi Court December 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.
Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Container Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi211; II(2005)BC48; 2005(1)CTLJ177(Del); 116(2005)DLT457; 2005(79)DRJ579
D.K. Jain, J.1. RULE D.B. 2. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 3. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the legality and propriety of the decision of the Container Corporation of India, a public sector undertaking and respondent No.1 herein, to award the work of survey o f containers and cargo at the Inland Container Depot (ICD for short) Tughlakabad, Delhi to one M/s.Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner seeks quashing of the award of work, with a direction to the first respondent to a lot/award the same to them, being the sole bidder having the requisite qualification and experience as prescribed under the eligibility criteria in the Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT' for short) dated 15 December 2003. 4. The factual matrix, on which the foundation of this judicial action is laid, is as foll...
Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT399; 2005(79)DRJ162; 2005(99)ECC152
R.C. Chopra, J.1. The appellant, a Nigerian national, stands convicted under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as '' Act'' only) vide orders dated 28.8.2003 and sentenced to undergo RI for 15 years and a fine of Rs 1 lac vide orders dated 15.9.2003. He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 30.7.1999, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) received a secret information that one Nigerian called King was having 5-6 kilograms of heroin with him for the purpose of smuggling it out of India. According to the information, he was keeping this Heroin in the back portion of House No.E-1/19, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The information was reduced into writing and was brought to the notice of the Senior Officers. Thereafter, raiding party was organized and a raid was conducted. Two public witnesses also were joined in the raiding party. Shr...
B.L. Gupta S/O Shri Mangi Ram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT416; 2005(79)DRJ529
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Two second appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 29th May, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in RCA No.159/1985 and RCA No.157/1985. For the sake of convenience, this Regular Second Appeal being RSA No.107/1985 was taken up as the main case.2. The question of law framed for consideration on 11th September, 1985 reads as follows: -Whether the limitation for filing the suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in respect of assessment of property for a particular year has to be computed under Section 478(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or whether Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the case?3. Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the Act) reads as follows: -478. Notice to be given of suits. - (1) No suit shall be instituted against the Corporation or against any municipal authority or against any municipal officer or other municipal employee or against any pe...
Chand Mohd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT373; 2005(79)DRJ110; 2005(99)ECC120
D.K. Jain, J.1. Rule D.B.2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of his detention pursuant to an order passed on 30 January 2004 by the Lt. Governor of National Capita l Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Detaining Authority) in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act for short).3. The order of detention is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.4. According to the grounds of detention, which are in the narrative form, the incident occurred on 27 August 2003, when the petitioner arrived from Bangkok and after collecting his checked in baggage opted to pass through the green channel. He was intercepted near the exit gate o...
Ram Singh Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT486; 2006(2)SLJ112(Delhi)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The prayer which is made in this petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of his discharge from military service with interest.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on October 15, 1963. During his service career spanning over 10 years and 258 days, the petitioner had earned more than four red-ink entries. As he had incurred more than four red-ink entries h was held to be a habitual offender and a show cause notice was issued to him directing him to show cause why he should not be discharged from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. After receipt of the aforesaid reply, t e same was considered and the petitioner was interviewed by the Commandant, School of Artillery. Thereafter, an order was passed by the respondent discharging the petitioner from service being unsuitable for military service in terms of the provisions of Army Rule 13-III(v) w...
Vijender Singh, Wireman Vs. Vice-chairman, Agricultural Produce Market ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT371; 2005(79)DRJ610; 2006(2)SLJ92(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Rule.With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.2. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the inquiry report dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure P/12) and the order of the disciplinary authority dated 22.4.1999/ 29.4.1999 (Annexure P/14) and order the Appellate Authority dated 5th May, 2003 (Annexure P/16).3. Petitioner is a Wireman working with respondent-Agricultural Produce Market Committee. An inquiry was held against the petitioner and a charge-sheet containing four articles of charges was served. These inter alias related to dereliction of duty. Petitioner was charged with lazing around without caring to make the D.G. set functional and allegedly leaving the place of duty contrary to the instructions of his superiors. As per charge No. II, petitioner was found to be habitual late comer and habitual in deserting his place of duty before the fixed hours. There was no improvement despite the authorities pointing this out to him. The third a...
Sikkim Janseva Pratisthan (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)1108
ORDERN.K. Karhail, JM.This Miscellaneous Application has been filed under section 254(2) of the Act stating that there are apparent mistakes in the order dated 25-4-2003 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid appeals which needs to be rectified.2. The Tribunal vide order dated 25-4-2003 dispose of the appeals for the assessment years 1987-88, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.'The facts for assessment year 1987-88 are that.The assessment under section 143(1) was completed in which the assessed had declared his income as nil. As a result of this, the refund of Rs. 1,01,554 was allowed. After examining the records, the assessing officer issued notice under section 154 on 14-12-1990 in which it was proposed to charge income tax at the rate of 25% on dividends at gross amount of Rs. 5,49,975 as per the provisions of section 115A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In reply, the assessed contended that he was entitled to deduction under section 80GGA out of dividend income received by it and tax at th...
Lohia Brass P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC389
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Lohia Brass Pvt.Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/96-CE dated 23.7.96 (S.No. 74.2) is available to the goods imported by them. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants, inspite of notice of hearing sent to them. We also observe that as and when the matter has been posted for hearing none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. We, therefore, take up the Appeal for disposal after hearing Shri O.P. Arora, learned Senior Departmental Representative and after perusing the records.2. The Appellants imported Brass scrap "Honey" falling under Heading No. 74.04 of the Tariff and claimed exemption from payment of Additional Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 8/96-CE dated 23.7.96 which has been denied to them by the Department on the ground that the exemption is available only to Copper waste and scrap used within the factory of production for the manufacture of unrefined unwrought cop...
Commissioner of Cus., Icd Vs. Hindustan Everest Tools Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT92TriDel
1. Heard both sides. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case the adjudicating authority held that year of manufacture of the imported second-hand machine is 1986 and also enhanced the value of the imported goods. The appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the evidence on record held that year of manufacture of the machine is 1993 and also set aside the enhancement of the value. Revenue filed this appeal only in respect of the year of manufacture challenging the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the year of manufacture of the machine is 1986 and not 1993 as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The contention of Revenue is that there is a certain marking on the machine which shows that the machine was fabricated in the year 1986 and Commissioner has wrongly taken the examination report of another machine to arrive at the finding that the year of...
Jaypee Bela Plant Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-14-2004
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT31TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Cenvat Credit is allowable on pipeline which is used for carrying water from reservoir to the factory for use in the manufacture of the finished products. The period of dispute is 1996-97.2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants pleaded that the appellant are bringing water from reservoir situated at 5/6 K.M. away from the factory through these pipe and tubes which are not in dispute. He pleaded that in the case of CCE, Chennai v.Pepsico India Holding Ltd. - 2001 (130) ELT 193 Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held that modvat credit on PVC pipes used outside the factory for the purpose of drawing water from the well situated 200m from factory is only an extension of pipelines inside the factory to be used with the factory premises and hence credit is admissible under rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He pleads that this principle was followed in the case of J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »