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.
Cherchi Domenico Ferdinando Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi147; 109(2004)DLT910; 2004(74)DRJ320
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of the order TPM/No. 18032/99/2002-F-II dated 27.8.2003, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India and letter/Order No. 7006/SB dated 8.9.2003, issued by the Office of Superintendent of Police-cum-Foreigners Registration Officer (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). By the said order, based on the telegraphic message, received from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the extension granted to the petitioner to stay in India up to 21.12.2003, was curtailed and the petitioner was sent to the Italian Embassy under the Police Escort for deportation. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to stay in India and restrain them from taking any steps to deport him prematurely or till he is legally entitled to stay in India.2. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 22.9.2003 and as an interim measure, it was directed that petitioner be not deported from India. Pleadings have been comple...
Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT163; 2004(73)DRJ222
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner joined service under the Government of India as Assistant Coal Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 25.4.1955. At the time of joining service, petitioner became a member of Contributory Provident Fund under the Government. Petitioner was under the administrative control of the Coal Production and Development Commissioner. Petitioner was paid wages as per CDA pay pattern. On 1.10.1956, National Coal Development Corporation was formed, which took over the development and administration of coal mines owned, run and managed by the Government of India. Services of all employees working under the Coal Production and Development Commissioner were transferred to the National Coal Development Corporation.2. On 16.8.1965, Government of India issued a letter No. 6C-14(43)/63 setting out the terms and conditions of transfer of the employees to National Coal Development Corporation. The National Coal Development Corporation vide its letter dated 26.11.1965 being letter ...
Asha Batra and ors. Vs. Dharam Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT852; 2004(73)DRJ154
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Revision is against the Order dated 24.3.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 15/1999 in terms of which the Revisionists have been imp leaded as Defendants in the civil suit which is still pending adjudication. The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in that suit and the father of the Revisionists was the only Defendant. Paras 9 and 10 of the plaint read as follows :'That the Plaintiff has several times asked the Defendant not to interfere in her possession, but the Defendant has failed to accede to the request of the Plaintiff and is always threatening to interfere with her possession. That the cause of action arose in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant on 12.5.1984 when the Defendant started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the land in question. It also arose on various occasions and it further arose on 13.5.1984 when the Defendant again tried illegally with the possession of the Plaintiff and a repo...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Gum and Chemical Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT362TriDel
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that waste/scrap of guar gum powder and tamarind kernel powder does not find any mention in Central Excise Tariff and therefore, is not excisable.3. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents are manufacturing guar gum powder and tamarind kernel powder and carboxy methyl starch and during the manufacture of these products, waste and scrap is generated which is nothing but is their final products of inferior quality and, therefore, is excisable and the respondents are liable to pay duty.4. The contention of the respondents is that there are two types of waste generated during the manufacture of their final products. The first category is of dust which comes into existence during the manufacture of guar gum powder, tamarind kernel powder and carboxymethyl starch. The powder is conveyed from one place to another place i.e. from pulverisers to si...
Popular Rubber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT469TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Popular Rubber Industries, is whether the Micro Rubber Cellular Rubber Sheets, manufactured by them, is classifiable under sub-heading 4008.11 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as claimed by them or sub-heading 3921.19 as confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order.2. Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner on remand by the Appellate Tribunal vide Final Order No. 25/2000-C, dated 5-1-2000 [2000 (117) E.L.T. 65 (T)], that the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with the direction to get the proper sample of the product re-tested and to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants; that a team of Central Excise Officers visited their factory on 10-5-2001 and they got two samples prepared in their presence; that one sample was of Vulcanised EVA Rubber Sheet and the oth...
Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC587
1. The first appellant M/s. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. is a processor of textile fabrics. The second and third appellants M/s.Sangam India Ltd. and M/s. Sangam Suitings are textile fabric manufacturers who got their fabrics proposed by the first appellant.The remaining appellants are officers of these manufacturing units.2. Processing of fabrics was liable to central excise duty at ad-valorem rates. Therefore, M/s. Sangam processors were discharging central excise duty on the processed fabrics based on their value.However, dispute arose about the correctness of the amount of duty paid by them. This led to the issuance of 2 Show-Cause-Notices dated 2.7.99 and 5.7.99 by the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner. The notices proposed recovery of the duty short levied as well as imposition of penalties on the processor, the aforesaid 2 supplier of fabrics and the officers of the companies. The Show-Cause-Notice also charged that the short levy was the result of suppression of ...
Matsushita Lakhanpal Battery (i) Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC291
1. In these 4 appeals filed by M/s. Matsushita Lakhanpal Battery (I) Ltd., arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal, the issue involved is regarding availability of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of rejected batteries.2. Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Primary Cells and Primary Batteries -- Dry Battery cells and intermediate products of Dry Battery cells; that the components manufactured by them are captively used in the manufacture of dutiable final product Dry Battery cells and they claim exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.95; that during the course of manufacture of Dry Battery Cells, a very small percentage of rejected/damaged Dry Battery cells is weeded out as waste and scrap; that the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise under 4 Orders-in-Original confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the ground that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is not av...
Spl Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT474TriDel
3. The contention of the applicants is that the lower authorities are not implementing the order passed by the Tribunal. The contention of the applicants is that in pursuance to the final order passed by the Tribunal refund has been granted but no interest has been paid.4. We find that the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 18-2-2003 [2003 (159) E.L.T. 720 (Tri. - Del.)] set aside the demand and allowed the appeal. In pursuance to the final order the applicants filed the refund claim. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 27-6-2003 allowed the refund of Rs. 45,17,034/-. The contention of the applicants is only that no interest has been paid on the amount refunded to the applicants.5. We find that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise passed the order on the refund filed by the applicants which is an appealable order and if the applicants are not satisfied with the order of the lower authority, applicants can avail the remedy available under Central Excise Act. In...
Mrs. Usha Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT116; 2004(73)DRJ240; 2004(3)SLJ98(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner prays that notice dated 28.3.1980 (should read 28.2.1980) issued by the Principal of respondent No.4 school notifying that services of the petitioner shall stand terminated w.e.f. 30.4.1980 be quashed. Letter dated 7.4.1980 issued by respondent No.5 terminating the services of the petitioner be quashed. Respondents No.4 and 5 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Assistant Teacher in the school w.e.f. 7.4.1980 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, promotions, seniority and continuity of service.2. Respondent No.4 is Meera Model School, established by respondent No. 5 Oberoi Education Society (Regd.). Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher under respondent No.4 school w.e.f. 11.7.1966.3. The school was an unrecognised school and, thereforee, provisions of Delhi School Education Act,1973, Delhi School Education Rules,1973 and the directives issued by the Director of Education from time to time were not appl...
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Delhi Administration Through Its Secre ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT158; 2004(73)DRJ296; 2004(3)SLJ266(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 18th October, 1985 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.1117/1983.2. The following reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication:-'Whether the removal from services of Sh. Om Prakash, Conductor is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. The allegation against the Respondent/Workman was that he had issued tickets to some bus passengers but the amount collected was more than the fare. An inquiry was held against the Respondent/Workman and the charges were proved against him. A show cause notice was then issued to him and after hearing the Respondent/Workman, his services were terminated. The Petitioner took approval of the proposed action from the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short).4. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues for consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »