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.
Batliboi Ltd. Vs. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CompLJ75(Del); [2005]62SCL141(Delhi)
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. is under provisional liquidation. Vide order dated 19 September 2002, passed in Company Petition No. 337 of 1996, the Official Liquidator attached to this court was appointed as the provisional liquidator with direction to take over the assets of the respondent company (hereinafter referred as 'the company') including books of accounts, etc. The assets of the company are in his possession now.2. It may be noted that the respondent company undertook the task of establishing and commissioning a plant in Orissa. For commissioning of the said plant, financial assistance was taken from various financial institutions, including the banks. Certain other parties had also supplied materials, etc., on credit. Before this plant could be fully commissioned and production started, it went into rough weather. As substantial amounts are due and payable to various banks/financial institutions/ secured creditors as well as other unsecured creditors, t...
Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Shri Sanjeev Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(80)DRJ496
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The respondent workman, who appeared in person, prayed that the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of wages during the pendency of the petition be heard at the first instance and thereafter alone the writ petition should be heard. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Workman represented by Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. & Others, (2000) 9 SCC 534. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner management had contended, today as well as on previous occasions, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. D.R. Singh : (1964)IILLJ644SC , that the application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b) without prejudice to its rights and contentions could not be rejected by the Tribunal as not maintainable. It is further contended that wherever an application under Section 33(2)(b) is rejected and...
Dinesh Gupta Vs. Madhu Sudan Gupta, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2004
Reported in: 117(2005)DLT705
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this order I propose to dispose of application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC dated 11.2.2003 filed by the plaintiff. Defendants have opposed this application. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 14.6.97 whereby defendant No. 1 agreed to sell First Floor of property No. D-43, N.D.S.E., Part-1, New Delhi to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36 lakhs. According to the averments contained in para 2 of the plaint, defendant No. 1 had already received a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs which includes a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by cheque No. 777810 dated 14.6.97 and the defendant No. 1 also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 32 lakhs. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Defendant No. 1, however, did not take any step in this direction despite service of legal notice and hence the suit.3. By the propose...
Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC243
1. In this appeal, which has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the Modvat credit of Rs. 16,67,051/- availed on the broken shells which were never used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, by the appellants.2. Ld. Counsel has contended that the appellants are entitled to claim credit even on the broken shells not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. He referred to the provisions of Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules under which exemption to the payment of duty has been provided where the goods were removed under Chapter X procedure. He has also contended that the appellants were working under the bona fide belief that they were entitled to the credit on the broken shells also and there was no mala fide intention on their part to avoid the payment of the duty, therefore, no penalty could be imposed.3. On the other hand, ld. SDR has reiterated the correctness of the ...
C.C. and C.E. Vs. Jaypee Rewa Plant
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT397TriDel
1. The Revenue has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.164/04 Dated 29.03.04 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the CENVAT Credit on the entire quantity of LDO/Furnace Oil to M/s. Jaypee Rewa Plant.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents nor was there any request for adjournment. As the issue involved is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal, I take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Sh. P M Rao, learned D R and after perusing the records.3. It is the contention of the Revenue that the scrutiny of the record pertaining to receipt of LDO and Furnance Oil by the respondents reveals that they had taken the CENVAT Credit of the entire duty as shown in the invoice even though there was shortage in the quantities actually received by them as compared to the quantities shown in the invoice; that the Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon various decisions of the Tribunal, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents ...
Dabur India Limited Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT667; 2005(79)DRJ461
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This application seeking directions has been filed pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th October, 2004 which reads as follows:-'During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant has given a modified version of a Story Board which is at page 83 to 86 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the appellant says that this Court may take modified version and decide the controversy in the matter. As a matter of fact learned Single Judge passed the order on the basis of the impugned Story Board which is at pages 37 to 41 of the paper book. Judicial proprietary demands that for modified version, a fresh application be filed by the appellant. Let an application be filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge after affording the opposite party, an opportunity to hear will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously.'2. As per the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, a modified version has been ...
Shri Sunil Jhakar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: [2006]132CompCas180(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT614; 2005(79)DRJ363
Vijender Jain, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the DRAT dated 11th August, 2003. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served and an ex-parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 24th February, 1997 on the basis of substituted service. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said ex-parte decree on 28th June, 1999. On 17th May, 2001 that application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed in default. thereforee on 28th May, 2001 the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. However, the application for restoration filed on 28th May,2001 was also dismissed by the DRT on 19th November, 2001. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the restoration application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DRAT. DRAT passed the impugned order dated 11th August, 2003 ...
Surya Nagri Telelinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT103; 2005(79)DRJ284
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against invocation of bank guarantee by respondent No. 1 MTNL, principally on account of the fact that the letter dated 5th April, 2004 stipulating terms of extension of delivery period was posted on 29th April, 2004 and accordingly, valuable time of one month was taken away. The relevant clause of the bank guarantees in question reads as under:- ''BANK GUARANTEE No.25/2003-04 dt. 06.01.2004 In consideration of the CMD, MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. (hereinafter called 'MTNL') having agreed to exempt Surya Nagri Telelinks Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 18-B, Lake Road, Kolkata - 700 029 [hereinafter called the ''the said Contractor(s)''] from the demand, under the terms and conditions of an agreement/ Advance Purchase Order No. MTNL/20-80(66)/ 2003-2004/2003-MM/PIJF/Vol.II/Sury Nagri dated 24.12.2003 made between MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. and SURYA NAGRI ...
Anand Kumar Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: 115(2004)DLT604; 2005(79)DRJ75
B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. The petitioner seeks his release on bail in case FIR No. 250/2004 under Section 376 IPC. 2. The petitioner faces accusation of subjecting his 13 year old daughter to sexual abuse and rape. The prosecution version emanating from the statement of prosecutrix unfolds that her mother was a cancer patient who died in September 2003. After the death of her mother the petitioner under the influence of alcohol started sexually abusing the prosecutrix every evening. According to her he tore her clothes and attempted to make sexual relation with her. She tried her best to repel him but could not succeed. Her younger sister was a witness to all this and in the last week of February, 2004, states the prosecutrix in her report to the police, the petitioner succeeded in making relation with her. Thereafter, his visits to her became more violent which she could not stand and eventually on 2nd July, 2004 she Along with her younger sister went to school not to return home she alon...
Shri Ajit Singh (Now Substituted by Surjit Kaur Gill) Vs. Smt. Adarsh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Delhi205; 116(2005)DLT217; 2005(79)DRJ413
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid IAs filed in Suit No. 2167/1993. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff, since deceased and now represented by LR (originally defendant No. 3), has filed a suit for partition, rendition of accounts, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property No. 3, South End Road, New Delhi, which was left behind by his sister, deceased Late Avinash Kaur. The deceased plaintiff Ajit Singh, defendant No. 1 Adarsh Kaur Gill and defendant Surjit Kaur Gill (now imp leaded as plaintiff), were brother and sisters of deceased Late Avinash Kaur. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of defendant No. 1 Adarsh Kaur Gill and the defendant No. 3 Gurinder Singh Gill is a nephew of late Avinash Kaur. An unmarried son of deceased Avinash Kaur named Kamal Kishore Bindal was also imp leaded as a defendant initially but during the pendency of the suit, he died leaving behind no LRs. 3. Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »