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.
Nutech Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT385TriDel
1. The issue involved in these four appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 6/2003, dated 26-3-2003 is whether M/s. Nutech Polymers Ltd., Appellants No. 1, were clearing their final products in the disguise of waste.2.1 Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, mentioned that M/s. Nutech Polymers Ltd., Appellants No. 1, manufacture PP/HDPE Tape, fabric, sacks; that when the Central Excise officers visited their factory on 19/20-3-2001, the stock of finished goods was found to tally with the balance recorded in RG1 Register; that stock of inputs, namely, HDPE Granules and Master batch was found short; that the officers also visited the premises of their job worker, M/s. Mateshwari Enterprises and the total variation in respect of all items came to 493.2 Kgs. from which 2,030 sacks were alleged to have been manufactured and removal involving duty Rs. 4,758/-; that it was also alleged that Appellant No.1 had despatched 1,18,546 bags without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 1,44,5...
M.L. Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT1; 2004(74)DRJ622
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, who was working as Section Officer in the Ministry of External Affairs, was posted in Mozambique, Africa during the period 1984-86. He returned to India on 1.10.1986. Petitioner by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the letter dated 29.3.1996 of the Ministry of External Affairs rejecting petitioner's representation for repatriation of sale proceeds of the car and holding that draft of Rs. 14,950/- was in order.2. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Union of India to pay a sum of Rs. 61,290.96 (Rupees sixty-one thousand two hundred ninety and ninety-six paise only) with interest at 24 per cent per annum from the date of deposit. Petitioner also prays for award of costs.3. By letter dated 29.3.1996, appearing at page 26 of the paper book, respondent remitted to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 14,950/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and fifty only) by a Reserve Bank of India bank draft issued by the Embassy of India at Maputo, Mozambique. The s...
Shri Kartar Singh Vs. Smt. Shanti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT156; 2004(73)DRJ361
Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. This Revision has been filed against the Order of the Civil Judge dated 24.2.2003. On an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaint was rejected, inter alia, holding that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC precluded the Plaintiff from bringing any subsequent claim. I shall refrain from making any observations on the legal propriety of this Order for the reason that the Revision petition itself is not maintainable.2. The complete answer is available in Atma Parkash & Ors. v. Roshan Lal & Ors. 1999 1 AD (DELHI) 815, which reads thus:-'In the present case the plaint was returned to the plaintiff/petitioner so as to be filed before a competent Court in accordance with its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel for respondent NO.3 points out that a decree as defined under Section 2, Sub-clause (2) of Civil Procedure Code is deemed to include a rejection of a plaint. He further submits that only an a...
Priya Vs. Sanjay Gaba
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT825; 2004(74)DRJ433
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J. 1. Through this petition the waiver of mandatory statutory period of one year in moving the petition for divorce by way of mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been sought by spelling out the exceptional circumstances and the hardships, both the parties are passing through. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the statutory period of one year is going to expire only in the month of April, 2004. The parties have settled all their disputes and have compromised the matter.2. Since out of the agreed amount of Rs. 7,11,000/- to be paid by the husband to the wife, Rs. 2,00,000/- have been paid and the remaining amount is to be paid after the divorce, petition is allowed and the FIR is quashed.3. Looking to the facts of the case particularly statement of the parents of the girl that they have already found a boy for her who is going abroad and in case this two months period is not waived they would again find themsel...
Bhagirathi Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi169; [2004]121CompCas324(Delhi); 109(2004)DLT895; 2004(73)DRJ146
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an unusual case. Normally, it is the Bank or the Lender who is chasing the defaulting Borrower/account holder for realisation of the debt. Here the position is reversed. It is petitioner-Account holder, depositing substantial cash daily without any default, who has come to Court for continuance of his account.2. This unusual scenario has emerged in the following facts :(a) Petitioner is a distributor for telecom cash cards. These are sold to customers on cash for use in the cellular phones. This generates a lot of cash for the petitioner which it had been depositing with the respondent-Bank on a daily basis.(b) Petitioner since the year 1995 has been having an account with the respondent-Bank. Petitioner was granted following revised credit facilities on 26th December, 2001: Cash Credit Limit (Hypothecation Facility of Rs. 32 lacs);Overdraft facility (Book debt of Rs. 8 lacs); and Bank guarantee facility of Rs. 2.5 lacs for a period of one year.(c) Responde...
Shri S.L. Saluja Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT56; 2004(73)DRJ284; (2004)IILLJ558Del; 2004(3)SLJ298(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner joined service under the bank on 8.1.1967. Rule 19 of the S.B.I. Officers Service Rules regulates the age of superannuating of the officer employees. Said rule as in force up to 31.5.1998 read as under :'19(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or upon the completion of thirty year's service or thirty year's pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first. Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years service or thirty years pensionable service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank, so however, that the service rendered by the concerned officer beyond 58 years of age except to the extent of the period of leave due at that time will not count for purpose of pension. Provided f...
Babu Lal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT948; 2004(3)SLJ84(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek quashing of the letters No. LPI/IP/529/Delhi/2002 and letter No. LP/LP/494/Delhi, both dated 9.2.2002, intimating the petitioners of the termination of their porter licenses. Petitioners also seek direction to the respondents to restore their porter licenses with badge Nos. 529 and 494 respectively, or to issue fresh porter license/ badge numbers, as may be feasible. Petitioners had been working at Old Delhi Railway Station as porters since 1983-84. Their licenses were renewed from time-to-time after every two years. Badge number of petitioner No. 1 is 529 and that of petitioner No. 2 is 494.2. On 23rd December, 2000 petitioners were found by the respondents illegally canvassing and arranging berths/seats in train Katihar Express. Vide order dated 5.3.2001, the Porter licenses of the petitioners were suspended by the respondent.3. Petitioners were booked under Sections 144 /180 of the Indian Railways Act and Kalandra was filed...
S. Nirmal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT63
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned decision dated 3rd January, 2003 appearing at page 30 of the paper book, by which claim of the petitioner for compensation as an 1984 Riots Victim was rejected on the ground that his father's named id not match as recorded in the police station.The petitioner's case is that his property and assets were damaged and burnt in the riots of 1984 on 2nd November, 1984. Petitioner is claiming compensation for the same:2. This case has a chequered history. The SDM of the respondent vide P-4 appearing at page 20-A of the paper book informed the petitioner that his case was considered sympathetically, but has been rejected by the Competent Authority. Another communication from the respondents was sent i.e. P-5 at page 21, by the SDM to the OSD of the Chief Minister to whom the petitioner had made a representation stating that 'the claim for ex gratia assistance has been made after 15 years. The petitioner had fa...
Dy. Cit Vs. Maya Machinery (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Del)309
ORDERDIVA SINGH, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 5-1-2000, of Commissioner (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar, pertaining to 1996-97 assessment year. The ground raised reads as under :'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,800 on account of disallowance of consultancy charges ignoring the fact that the expenditure claimed under this head was held by the assessing officer to be non-genuine and the facts of the case are discussed by the assessing officer in detail in the body of the assessment order. The assessing officer was, thereforee, justified in making above addition on the facts and circumstances of the case.'2. The assessed-company derives its income by sale of sugar machinery equipments. It filed its return declaring a loss of Rs. 2,003 and the assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 1,23,800. The assessing officer observed that the assessed claimed to have paid consultancy charges of ...
Radhika Vs. Vineet Rungta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi323; 110(2004)DLT111; 2004(73)DRJ311
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Revision is directed against the Order of the Additional District Judge dated 12.8.2000 dismissing the Revisionist/Petitioner/Wife's application for maintenance pendente lite. A perusal of the Order shows that the principal consideration that weighed in the mind of the learned Trial Court was that the Wife has not come to the Court with clean hands and has not placed her real income though she admits that she has certain income from interest on deposits.2. It is poignant that the learned Judge has not discussed the income of the Husband. 3. Cases where the parties disclose their actual income are extremely rare. Experience, thereforee, dictates that where a decision has to be taken pertaining to the claim for maintenance, and the quantum to be granted, the safer and surer method to be employed for coming to a realistic conclusion is to look at the status of the parties, since whilst incomes can be concealed, the status is palpably evident to all concerned. If ...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »