Delhi Court February 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.
Hari Ram Vs. K.L. Gandhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT190; 2004(73)DRJ362
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the Order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2.7.1999. The facts of the case are that the respondent Mr. K.L. Gandhi had made a Statement on oath before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi on 14.7.1994 to the following effect:'I Along with my brother Shri Prehlad Gandhi have sold the land bearing kh. No.471/345 measuring (3-3-) 472/345 (3-6) totalling (6-9) situated in the revenue estate of vill. Dallupura vide assignment deed/sale deed in favor of Shri Hari Ram, S/o Shri Bhagwan r/o 118, Serai Kale Khan, New Delhi regd. At No.396. Addl. book No.1 volume no.2552 pages 186 to 190 dt. 27.1.94. Now I have no interest in the aforesaid land/compensation. Compensation of the aforesaid land may be given to the applicant/assignee/vendee, Siri Hari Ram. The assignment deed is Ex. HR. Same is correct'. 2. As is evident an Assignment Deed had been executed by Shri K.L. Gandhi and Shri Pehlad Gandhi to the same effect as ...
Hoshyar Singh Suresh Chandra Sarees Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sale ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Del)173; 110(2004)DLT74; 2004(73)DRJ206
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. In this bunch of matters, there are three groups. Group I covers 29 matters (CWP No. 2341, 2552,2354, 2964,2965,2966,2967,2968,2970,2971,2981,2986,2987,2988,2994, 2995, 2996, 2998, 2999, 3011, 8012, 3013, 3014, 3742, 3748, 3753, 4773, 3721, 3739 ) out of which we have taken CW 2431/2003 filed by Hoshyar Singh Suresh Chandra Sarees Pvt Ltd as the lead case. In these cases, after completion of assessments, notices were issued and after reopening, reassessments have been completed. Group II consists of ten cases ( CWP No. 2337, 2338, 2340, 2351, 2353, 2355, 2356, 2361, 2362, 2339/2003) When the petitions were filed assessments had not been completed in these cases. Thereafter, during the pendency of the petitions, assessments have been completed. In Group III, there are nine matters (CWP No 3325, 3324, 3327,3341, 3342, 3370, 3373, 3398, 3767), where assessments have been completed but have been re-opened.2. In all these petitions, a pure question of construction and int...
Raju Vs. State/Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT953; 2004(73)DRJ559
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellant-Raju was prosecuted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held guilty and convicted for the same vide judgment dated 28.7.1999. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the appellant on the point of sentence, sentenced the appellant-accused to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 363, IPC, rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC, and in default, rigorous imprisonment of four months and seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for four months. All substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The appellant preferred an appeal against the sentences and conviction. Notice in the appeal was issued on 10.12.1999. The sentence of the appellant...
Smith Kline Beecham Plc. and ors. Vs. Lalitbhai Patel and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(73)DRJ492
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and also copyright of the plaintiff and also for a decree restraining passing of and for rendition of accounts. 2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of various pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations including that of ZENTEL, which according to the plaintiffs is an invented word having no dictionary meaning. The plaintiffs are also the registered owner of the trade mark ZENTEL as the said trade mark is registered in the name of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs also claim copyright on the aforesaid product stating that the said product is being sold in India since 1986 in a distinctive packaging, which is substantially based on the wave pattern appearing on the ZENTEL international pack. The plaintiffs have also stated that the plaintiffs have spent huge amount in advertising and promoting the...
Suresh Vs. M.C.D. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT596; 2005(1)SLJ296(Delhi)
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. The only issue raised in this case by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even though reinstatement has been ordered by the impugned Award dated 3rd January, 2000, back wages have not been awarded by the learned Labour Court.2. The reason for not awarding back wages is mentioned in para 11 of Award which reads as follows:'As an upshot of the above discussion, it follows that action of the management is unsustainable, workman is entitled to reinstatement. However, as regards back wages, it may be observed that workman had done no better than merely alleging that he is unemployed since terminated. He has disclosed as to what efforts he made to find alternative employment. It is difficult to believe that he sat idle throughout litigation. He had a duty to mitigate loss as per 1981(1) LJJ 385 SC. In 1994(2) LLN 925, Bombay High Court held that when workman has no regard for truth, 12 months' wages are sufficient. Similarly, in 1998(2) LLN Allahabad High Co...
Sutlej Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN171(Delhi)
Admit.2. Paper book would be filed by the appellant within a period of three months as per rules.3. Against the order made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 6199/Delhi of 1997 for the assessment year 1994-95, this appeal is filed. According to the assessed, he is entitled to interest on the refund from the date of the payment of tax, while the revenue contends that the amount of refund is determined subsequently and it is from the subsequent date that he would be entitled to get interest, if there is delay in payment. In the opinion of the court, the following question of law is required to be examined considering the facts and circumstances of the case'What would be the date for reckoning the interest on refund under section 244A(1)(b) ?'So far as the other assessment year (1995-96) is concerned, learned Counsel for the revenue has rightly objected that there cannot be a consolidated appeal. As aforesaid, the present appeal is taken to be an appeal qua assessment year...
Shree Ganesh International Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT479TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shree Ganesh International the issue involved is whether Pan Masala containing tobacco manufactured by them is classifiable under Heading 24.04 as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order or under Heading 21.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by the Appellants. impugned product is classifiable under Heading 21.06. Finally the learned Advocate submitted that even if they are held to be liable to pay duty under Heading 24.04 of the Tariff the price realized by them should be regarded as cum-duty price in terms of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres vs. CCE, 32 RLT 1 (CEGAT - LB).3. Countering the arguments Shri P.M. Rao, learned D.R., submitted that tobacco products are classifiable under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff and once the Pan Masala containing tobacco, commonly known as gutaka, is covered by Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of special...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Deepak Polyspin
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT360TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against setting aside of penalty imposed on M/s. Deepak Poly-spin by the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned Order.2. Shri Ajay Jain, learned Advocate for the Respondents, under letter dated 10-2-2004 has requested for adjournment on account of his engagement somewhere else. As the issue involved is in very narrow compass, we reject the application for adjournment and take up the appeal for disposal after hearing Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, and after perusing the records.3. Shri D.N. Chaudhary, learned SDR, submitted that the Respondent, a 100% Export Oriented Unit, were engaged in the manufacture of man-made blended yarn for which they had procured capital goods/machinery without payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No.1/95-CE., dated 4-1-95; that when the Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises on 5-8-98 some of the machines/capital goods were not found physically present therein; that on subs...
Jhoonjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT626TriDel
1. M/s. Jhoonjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. have filed this appeal against demand of Customs duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture vegetable oil commonly known as vanaspati ; that they imported Crude Palm Oil which is the basis raw material for the manufacture of vanaspati and cleared the same under a few bills of entry at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus dated 1.2.2000; that the benefit of Notification is available subject to the condition that the importer follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1996; that the Appellants had obtained registration certificate under Rule 3 of the said rules and had also executed bond; that the Asst. Commissioner under Order-in-Original No.49/2001 dated 1.11.2001 has confirmed the demand of duty in respect of 43.175 MT of Crude palm Oil which was ...
V.N. Dyers and Processors P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC431
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the issue relates to the refund of the duty amount to them for the period prior to 14.6.99.2. The learned Consultant has contended that since the duty was paid under protest the refund claim could not be held to be time barred especially when the refund to the appellants on redetermination of the duty liability under the compounded levy scheme after excluding the galleries, has not been disputed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the duty liability of the appellants were determined by the Commissioner vide order dated 16.4.99 as Rs. 8,03,635 per stenter machine. This order was never challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal. The duty was paid by them without protest. The protest wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »