Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. A.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR13(Delhi); 2004(74)DRJ200

Mukundakam Sharma, J:1.By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. Nos. 3276/1998 and 3277/1998 in CS (OS) No. 984-A/1997 and Execution Petition No. 227/2000.2.Disputes having arisen between the parties, Shri Ram Bahadur, Additional Legal Adviser, was appointed as the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes which also included a demand for risk purchase loss due to breach of contract by the judgment debtor-A.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. The arbitrator was appointed by order dated December 31, 1996 whereas the award was passed by him on March 26, 1997. The arbitration records which are placed before me indicate that notice of making the award was sent by the arbitrator to both the parties on March 26, 1997 itself sending the same through registered post. A signed copy of the aforesaid award was received by the Union of India from the arbitrator on March 27, 1997 which is disclosed from the application which is filed by the Union of India under section 14 of the Arbit...

Shyama Natural Pharma and Herbals Ltd. Vs. Bake Well Engineering (P) L ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2004)BC74; 111(2004)DLT91; 2004(74)DRJ396

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The brief facts of the case are that the Revisionist had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/- and for mandatory injunction. This Suit was decreed by a Judgment dated 14.5.2001, the operative part of which reads thus:'In view of the above discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has successfully proved its case against the defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in its favor and against the defendant. A decree for recovery of Rs. 1,60,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation of decretal amount is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Another decree for mandatory injunction is also passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to return to the plaintiff the original cheque No. 910243 dated 16.12.1999 for Rs. 1,39,544/- drawn on State Bank of India, Jaipur. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favor of the plaintiff. DECREE SHEET be dr...

Abdul Rehan Vs. State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3468; 112(2004)DLT161; 2004(74)DRJ467

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 1995, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 103 Delhi Police Act.2. The allegations of the prosecution are that the accused Abdul Rehani on 14th October, 1993 at 8.50 pm at plat form-2-Crl.Rev.P.266/1995 number was found in possession of an attached case containing a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- suspected to be the stolen property. The accused has not been able to give any satisfactory account of possessing the same. Notice under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act has been served on the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was the case of the accused that he had received this money from 45 passengers for the purposes of arranging the passage from Delhi to Jeddah and from Jeddah to Delhi. The name and Passport Nos. of the passengers are given below:-1. Mohammad Zakir Hussain H-6121722. Abdul Manan H-6124593. Adil Hussain A 8127794. Isleyaque Ahmed ...

NitIn Dave and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(29)PTC71(Del)

CM No. 209/2004 in C.W. No. 9081-82/2003 9081-82/2003 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction for declaring the provisions contained in Chapter IVA and, particularly, Sections 24A and 24F of the Patents Act, 1970 as unconstitutional and to quash and set aside the order made by the Respondent No. 2, Controller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, Kolkata.2. The petition has also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents, their servants and agents from acting upon the Exclusive Marketing Rights granted by the Respondent No. 2 in favor of Respondent No. 3.3. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued the matter in detail. However, on behalf of the Respondents the question of jurisdiction was raised, inter alias pointing out that the cause of action falls wholly within the territorial limits of the High Court of Kolkata and this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. But, the Ld. Cou...

R.C. JaIn Through Lr Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Del)34; [2005]273ITR384(Delhi)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents not only in transferring the case from Delhi to Calcutta but also in making an assessment order in breach of principles' of natural justice as well as in breach of provisions contained in the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The residential premises of one Romesh Chand Jain at 7-A, Rajpur Road, Delhi, was searched in pursuance to a search warrant issued by the competent authority on or about 12th Feb., 2001. Mr. R..C. Jain expired on 27th Nov., 2001. Thereafter a show-cause notice was issued on or about 6th-7th Feb., 2002, addressed to Shri R.C. Jain (since deceased) by the learned CIT, Delhi, inter alia, calling upon him to show cause as to why the case should not be transferred to Calcutta. The date was fixed on 15th Feb., 2002 and the notice was given without assigning any reason for transfer of the case.3. The petitioner pointed out on that date that Shri R.C. Jain had ex...

Cc and Ce Vs. Endolabs Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The issue involved in these 3 appeals, filed by Revenue, is whether medicament namely Norfloxacin 100 mg Piroxicam Gel manufactured by Endolabs Ltd. are classifiable under Sub-heading 3003.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or are classifiable under Sub-heading 3003.10 of the Tariff.2. Shri U. Raja Ram, learned DR, submitted that medicament in question are patent or proprietary medicament classifiable under Sub-heading 3003.10 as the same are not specified in Note 2(ii) to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, that the Respondents have failed to discuss as to under which pharmacopoeia, formulary or publications they find a mention; that a perusal of Indian Pharmacopoeia 1996 refers Norfloxacin tablets which is usually in the strength of 200 mg., 400 mg. & 800 mg.whereas the Respondents tablets are having strength of 100 mgs. and as such they are not covered by Indian Pharmacopoeia; that the container of the tablet m...

Perfect Mechanical Industries Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellants, during the relevant period, were engaged in the activity of manufacturing bodies on duty-paid chassis (supplied by customers) of motor vehicles. They classified different types of motor vehicles under different headings viz. 87.02, 87.04, 87.05 and 87.16 of the CETA Schedule and cleared them without payment of duty, claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE (as amended).The ferrous and non-ferrous waste and scrap which arose in the course of the above activity were also cleared without payment of duty, for which the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.5.95 was claimed. The department issued six show-cause notices for different periods comprised in November 1996 to November 2001, out of which only four show-cause notices are relevant to the present case.Each of the four show-cause notices contested the classification claim of the party and proposed to classify all the motor vehicles under Heading 87.07. Each notice all...

Amrita Moulding (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT177TriDel

1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I think the appeal itself needs to be finally disposed of at this stage.3. The appeal is against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The last two paragraphs of his order are reproduced below :- "Final hearing in the case took place on 8-10-2003 and it was attended by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate. He simply reiterated the submissions made in the grounds of appeal. As the appellant has not deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) as ordered vide Stay Order No. 13/2003, dated 21-1-2003 issued under Section 35F of Central Excise Rules, 1944, without going into the merits of the case, I hereby reject the appeal for non-compliance of Stay Order No. 13/2003, dated 21-1-2003 issued under Section 35F of Central Excise Rules, 1944." 4. It appears from the above order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order after giving a final hearing to the assessee's counsel and considering his submissions. Nevertheless, the ...

Bhawani Shanker Castings Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner. The facts in brief are as under: The appellants, M/s. Bhawani Shankar Casting Ltd. Vill. Raowali, Jalandhar operating an induction furnace of 3 MT capacity and manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots, filed an application dated 23.9.97 giving their option to work under Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules for short). The Commissioner Central Excise vide order dated 22.9.98, determined the annual capacity of production of the unit as 9600 MT in terms of Notification No. 24/97-CE(NT) dated 25.7.97 read with Section 3A of the Act. Accordingly, the appellants were required to pay duty of Rs. 5 lakhs per month, through account current as per Rule 96ZO(3) of the Rules. In the meantime, the appellants vide their letter dated 15.1.98 made submissions to the Commissioner, that they have obtained an order worth Rs. One crore for supply of steel casting to Rail Coach Factory, Kapur...

A.N. Shukla Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT188TriDel

1. This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. SDR raises a preliminary objection. He submits that the appeal filed by the party is time-barred. A certified copy of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs had been dispatched by registered post to them on 4-5-99. Again, upon specific application; filed by the party, another copy of the impugned order was issued to him and dispatched by registered post on 10-2-2003. The requirement of Section 153 of the Customs Act was duly fulfilled by the department. Hence, DR submits, the date of communication of the impugned order, shown in the appeal memorandum, is not correct. When the period of limitation is reckoned with reference to the dates of earlier dispatch of the impugned order, the present appeal will be found to be time-barred. These submissions are contested by the Counsel for the applicant, who submits that the applicant received a copy of the order ...