Delhi Court April 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.
Amrit Lal Mehta Vs. Director General of Revenue Intellegence and Inves ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ400; 2004(96)ECC17; 2004(178)ELT99(Del)
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The Petitioner has approached this court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith grant full and final reward of Rs. 68,27,522/- with interest being allegedly due as per the Reward Policy dated 30.03.1985.2. The Petitioner provided specific information at his personal risk to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta on 30.11.1987 with regard to smuggling activity by M/s J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'JKSL'). According to the petitioner, there was concealment in the consignment of Heavy Duty Direct Cables imported at Calcutta by JKSL against the import license dated 6.11.1986. In the petition, the petitioner has pointed out about the manner in which the information was conveyed and how his information was helpful to the Revenue in collecting huge amount from the person (JKSL) evading the duty.3. Subsequently, he approached the respondent No. 1 and on behalf of respondent No. 1, an affidavit is filed by one Mr R.K. Joshi, Assistant Dire...
M.R. Tobacco Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(74)DRJ574; 2004(94)ECC373; 2004(178)ELT137(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala (Gutkha). Earlier, the petitioner was classyfying this product under subheading No. 2404.49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was paying 16% basic excise duty and 24% special excise duty on the basis of an approved classification list. Subsequently, the petitioner, on receipt of a letter dated 31.10.2000, from the Central Excise Department, filed a fresh classification list and started clearing the aforesaid goods by classifying the same under heading No. 24.04 and paid Central excise duty accordingly, A show cause notice dated 27.11.2001 was issued to the petitioner contending that in respect of the period prior to 28.02.2001, the said goods were classifiable under heading 2106.00 and that the petitioner was liable to pay duty for the period up to 28.02.2001. The petitioner filed a reply to the said show cause notice and after considering such reply, the Deputy Commissioner of ...
D.D.A. Vs. Bhai Sardar Singh and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR465(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT415
B.A. Khan, J.1. The short question that falls for determination is whether the old Arbitration Act of 1940 or the new Arbitration Act of 1996 would apply in the matter.2. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent was awarded the contract for construction of 1068 houses at Motia Khan. During its execution, disputes arose between the parties and respondent invoked Arbitration clause (Clause 25) of the contract agreement which amongst other things provided :'Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or any re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause.'3. Respondent then filed petition under Section 20 of the old Arbitration Act for appointment of an Arbitrator way back in 1982 which was registered as Suit No. 994-A/1982. One Shri Subramanyam, Superintending Engineer of appellant/DDA was appointed as the sole Arbitrator in this. He, howeve...
Asha Sinha Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2725; 111(2004)DLT447; 2004(74)DRJ481
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 7.1.2004 dismissing the application of the petitioner filed pursuant to order of the High Court dated 13.11.2003 which challenged the order dated 29.9.2003 of the Magistrate framing charge under Section 498-A IPC. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as a result of a complaint moved before the Crime Against Women's Cell dated 10.8.1999 an F.I.R. No. 252/2000 was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj on 19.04.2000. On 19.05.2000 the complainant made another complaint in which she roped in additional people namely, the petitioner, her husband - Dalip Kumar, brother-in-law - Ajit Kumar, two sister-in-laws Ranjana Kumari and Neelam Kumari. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while framing the charge vide his order dated 29.9.2003 discharged Ajit Kumar, Dalip Kumar, Ranjana Kumari and Neelam Kumari on the ground that the cruelty alleged is quite vague and general in nature. Further that there is no spe...
Mrs. Chandra Prabha Dogra Vs. Lic of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi291; 112(2004)DLT168; 2004(74)DRJ500
Manmohan Sarin, J (Oral). 1. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the Orders dated 20.1.2002, 15.5.2002 and 17.4.2003 passed by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively by which the petitioner's agency was terminated and the renewal commission forfeited. Petitioner also seeks a direction for restoration of the agency from the date of termination with continuity of benefits. A direction for payment of renewal commission together with interest is also sought.2. Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C).No.5389/2003, which was disposed of with a direction to the Chairman, LIC to decide the memorial of the petitioner dated 30th September, 2002. The said memorial was rejected by the Chairman LIC by the impugned Order dated 17.4.2004. Notice was issued in the writ petition on 3rd November, 2003. Vide Order dated 12th February, 2004, respondent nos.4 and 5, namely, the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and Union of India were deleted as parties. Cost of Rs.1500/- was imposed and time to...
Uma Shankar Vs. Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT270; [2004(101)FLR1038]; (2004)IIILLJ520Del; 2004(3)SLJ344(Delhi)
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner/Workman has invoked the powers under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. is guilty of committing contempt of the Orders of this Court. The Respondent has denied this allegation and has submitted that adequate remedy is available to the Workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, which should be pursued by the Workman instead of this Petition.2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner's services had been terminated on 5.2,1987. An Award came to be published on 8.5.1998 in terms of which the Workman was reinstated in service along with full back-wages, but these Orders have allegedly not been complied with. The Management had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 817/1999 assailing this Award. On 12.2.1999, the Management was directed to deposit the awarded amount within four weeks and subject to doing so, the operation of the impugned Award would be stayed. It transpires that the Workman ...
Dr. Durga Parmar and ors. Vs. V.K. Verma and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT793
R.C. Chopra, J.1. This application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant No. 1 with the prayer to reject the suit by the plaintiffs on the ground that they have not properly valued the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and have not paid adequate Court-fee thereon.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs, who are daughters of deceased Shri Shiv Lal Verma, have filed this suit for partition and rendition of accounts against the defendants alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal representatives of the deceased and are entitled to equally share the properties left behind by deceased, which include various properties including House No. 69, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. According to the plaintiffs they are also entitled to rents being received from the properties as well as income and dividends accruing from the shares, debentures, fixed deposits, etc., le...
Spice Communications Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC517
1. The appellant M/s. Spice Communications Limited is a provider of Mobile Telecom Service. For setting up that facility the appellant imported fifteen units of BTS at Delhi in Nov., 2002. These were used machines and were purchase at a cost of US $ 12500 per piece. The invoice from 2nd Source Wireless, USA described the item as "Motorola M CELL BTS Cabinet (900MHz) - used" Inspection certificate from Chartered Engineer has also been filed. This certificate stated that the manufacturer was Motorola, United Kingdom and year of manufacture was 1995. About the price, Chartered Engineer certificate stated as under :- "We estimate the current value of the equipment, at that time (i.e. in the year 1995) to be US $ 35,000. We consider the price asked by the seller namely US $ 12,500 per BTS cabinet CIP New Delhi to be reasonable".2. Goods on arrival at Delhi were examined by the Customs. It was noticed that all the BTSs, except one, have year of manufacture marked as 1998. One of them was of...
Ultra Refrigerators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC337
1. The duty demand in this present case is made on the basis that the appellant-manufacturer was marketing his goods through a related person and for that reason the value for the purpose of assessment of the goods should be the related person's sale price to unrelated parties, after discarding the sale price to the related person. As against this finding, learned Counsel for the appellant has emphasised that the appellant was selling part of the goods to unrelated buyers also and those prices were lower than the sale prices to the so-called related party. Given this fact, it is his contention that the price to the related persons cannot be called non-commercial price at all, since that price was higher than the price to unrelated persons. The learned Counsel took us through the appellant-assessee's reply in the original proceedings as well as the finding in the adjudication before Additional Commissioner.2. We have perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides....
Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC554
1. The appellant is a 100% EOU and they produce inter-alia, Hexa Methyl Di Silliazine (HMDS). During February 1998 to November 1998, the appellant made some supplies of HMDS to M/s Lupin Laboratories Ltd. These supplies were in terms of Advance Release Order issued by Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) office. The Advance Release Orders were issued in lieu of advance licenses, which had been issued to M/s Lupin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. In terms of advance licence, M/s Lupin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. were entitled to import inter-alia, HMDS for export production. Further, in terms of Notification No. 30/97-Cus.dated 1.4.97, the materials imported against advance licence "with Actual User Condition in terms of para 7.4 of the Export - Import Policy, 1997-2002" were exempt from the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified under First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1975 and "from the whole of additional duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act". T...