Delhi Court March 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.
Krupa Pharmaceuticals and Gopal Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC109
1. Appellant Gopal Das Visram & Co. is a manufacturer of medicine. It manufactured some medicines for M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. In some cases, order was directly placed by M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. in the remaining cases through Krupa Pharmaceuticals. Excise duty was discharged on the goods so manufactured against job orders by treating sale prices to M/s. Glenmark Pharma Ltd. as assessable values, whether that was the sale price of the appellant manufacturer himself or Krupa Pharmaceuticals through whom the order was placed on the appellant. The impugned order proceeds to demand differential duty based on a finding that the assessable (sic, assessable value) should be the price at which the buyer (Glenmark Pharma Ltd.) sold the goods.2. Appellant's contention is that the sale price of the buyer has no relevance for determination of the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the party, unless special circumstances mentioned in the valuation provision is attracted. That prov...
Sial Sbec Bioenergy Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)83TTJ(Delhi)866
1. These two appeals have been filed one by the assessee being ITA No.5461/Del/ 2003 and the other filed by the Revenue being ITA No.1007/Del/2004 challenging the order of the CIT(A) dt. 2nd Dec., 2003, on the grounds detailed below : "1. The learned CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in upholding the action of the AO to allow depreciation under Section 32 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'), even though the claim, being optional in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC), the appellant-company had opted not to claim the same. 2. The learned CIT(A) has also erred on the facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in not accepting that steam is one of the forms of power and, therefore, income from generation of steam is eligible for deduction under the provisions of Section 80-IA(4)(iv)f which is applicable to an undertaking engaged in generation of power. 3. In any case and without prejudic...
Kishan Dutt Verma S/O Shri B.D. Verma Vs. Baby Parul (Minor) Through S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi366; 110(2004)DLT703; I(2004)DMC675; 2004(74)DRJ8
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 1st October, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Suit Nos. 183/2001 and 184/2001.2. The Appellant, a practicing advocate in the District Courts, got married to Rajni Bala on 17th February 1991. They are the parents of both the Respondents. Parul (the Respondent in FAO No.117 of 2003) was born on 27th June, 1993 while Geetanshu (the Respondent in FAO No.89 of 2003) was born on 7th March, 1997. Quite clearly, they are minors and both are studying in school.3. According to their mother who filed the suit on their behalf, the Appellant has totally neglected the family with the result that she has to live with her parents (her father is an ex-serviceman from the Air Force), who also help in looking after the children. In these circumstances, the mother was compelled to file a petition in May 1995 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for her maintenance as well ...
Shri Gajendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 110(2004)DLT591
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. Factual details of the matter are in a narrow canvass. For this reason the issue involved is also limited. While scanning through the facts, the issue shall also get surfaced. thereforee, it would be apposite to do the exercise of narrating the facts in the first instance. 2. Petitioners claim themselves to be the owners of agricultural land comprising Khasra No.2645/1896/1353 (old) 779 (new) in the revenue estate of Mehrauli, Delhi Administration. In fact, the father of the petitioners, who came to Delhi after partition of the country in 1947, purchased this land in a public auction. The property at that time was an evacuee property. 3. Vide notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vast tract of land came to be acquired. The land, subject matter of this notification, measured 34070 acres. This land was marked with block numbers A to T and A in the selected map and the description was given...
S.R. Yadav Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ530
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Respondents are granted four weeks' time within which to file Reply to the Writ Petition. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. CM No.3609/2004 2. In some of these petitions I had passed interim Orders to the effect that if the proposed auction is proceeded with, one plot shall be kept reserved for the Petitioner. Thereafter, interim Orders to this effect had not been granted in some of the other petitions because it had been pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondents that the Division Bench had upheld the policy of the DDA to auction plots in LPA No.978/2002 titled Smt.Supla Jain v. DDA, decided on 3.9.2003. That decision however does not apply to the facts of the present case, as shall be evident hereinafter. 3. The Scheme with which the Court is presently concerned is the Rohini Residential Scheme, a blue print or Site/Layout Plan of which has been filed in this Court by counsel for the Petitioners. Broadly stated the Scheme is ca...
Bharat Hotels Limited Vs. Unison Hotels Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(28)PTC404(Del)
O.P. Dwivedi, J.1. By this order, I propose to dispose of is No. 2533/2003 filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 507/2003, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'THE GRANDTGRAND' or any other mark or name which is similar to the Plaintiff's mark/name THE GRAND/THE GRAND GROUP/GRAND, in relation to any hotel, resort or any business allied and cognate with the Plaintiff's hotel and lousiness, thereby resulting in passing off.2. This passing off action has been launched by the plaintiff against the defendant. Both parties are in hotel business. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff company is one of the leading companies engaged in the business of owning, operating, managing and running of hotels all over India. The plaintiff company is engaged in the said business since the year 1988. The plaintiff company, since inception has been well known for its luxury hotels which are located in almost all the major ci...
Pepsico Inc. and ors. Vs. Sunrise Beverages
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(28)PTC415(Del)
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff's praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and also acts of unfair competition and also for a decree of rendition of accounts. The Plaintiff's also filed an injunction application which was registered as is No. 2922/2002. The plaint and the injunction application were listed before this Court. While issuing summons in the suit by order dated 20.3.2002 an ad interim ex parte injunction was also granted in favor of the Plaintiff's and against the defendant and their agents restraining them from manufacturing and marketing their products under the marks/name '7 UP', 'UP' and 'SEVENTH UP' or any other mark, which may be identical with or deceptive similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks. As notice was also issued on the said application, the defendant was served with both the summons and the notice pursuant to which the defendant has filed also an application...
Laxmi Prasad and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT435; 2004(3)SLJ511(Delhi)
ORDERPradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Grievance of the petitioner is that the General Provident Fund Passbook which is being issued to the Class IV employees working under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi neither bears the signature nor does it bear the stamp of the competent authority issuing the passbook. Further grievance is that Statement of Account showing the opening balance as on the 1st day of April of each year is not being entered in the passbook. The amounts credited or deducted in the accounts during the year are also not being entered in the GPF Account Book which is being issued.2. It is stated in the petition that whenever Class IV employees seek withdrawal or at the end of their services when they superannuate, lot of hardship is caused because the employees are not provided with the necessary entries in the passbook when they are in service under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.3. Mandate of Rule 39 of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules, 1960 casts a statutory obligatio...
Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC238
1. In these 3 appeals, filed by M/s. Kinjal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether they are eligible to avail of SSI Exemption in respect of some of the goods manufactured by them and pay duty at Tariff rate after availing Modvat credit in respect of other goods manufactured by them.2. Shri K.L. Rekhi, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue involved in these appeals has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their own matter for the earlier period Kinjal Electricals P. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut -2004 (165) E.L.T. 300 (Tribunal - LB). He, further, submitted that they had submitted their option-cum-classification declaration under SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/99-CE. on 1-4-99 for the financial year 1999-2000 opting to avail the SSI Exemption for some of the specified goods and paying duty at normal tariff rate for the remaining specified goods; that the said option-cum-declaration was accepted by the Asstt. Commissioner under letter dated 31-5-99; that the...
Amc Cookware (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC533
1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the importer is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the technical licence fee payable by the appellant is related to the imported goods and whether the technical licence fee which has not yet been paid is addable to the transaction value under rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 in respect of import made by the appellant during the period august 2000 to February 2001.2. The appellant is a joint ventrure company and 51% of its shares were held by Alpha BETEILIGUNGESELLSCHAFT Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as Alpha) and the remaining 49% of the shares are held by Ceejay Cookware Investments Ltd., Mauritius (hereinafter referred to as Ceejay). Ceejay had made application in January 2000 to Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) seeking clearance for investment in the appellant company.In the above application, it was indicated that the appellant company would be located at Bangalore, Karnata...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »