Delhi Court April 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Deluxe Electrical and Mechanical Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi325; IV(2004)BC144; [2005]123CompCas324(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT148; 2004(74)DRJ560; (2004)138PLR39
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. By this writ petition, order or direction for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2003 (Annexure P-14) by respondent no.4-bank is sought. Annexure P-14 is a letter dated 27th December, 2003 by which respondent no.4-bank informed the petitioner of rejection of its proposal under RBI 'One Time Settlement' Scheme. The impugned letter notices the DICGC rejection of claim due to diversion of funds and mismanagement vide their letter dated 12.9.2000. Petitioner accordingly was termed as 'willful defaulter' and not eligible under the one time settlement scheme of RBI.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Pallav Shishodia submits that respondent no.4-bank itself has issued a notice dated 25.2.2003, whereby a compromise offer for one time settlement was called for. Reliance is also placed on page 18 of paper book, whereby while considering the offers made by the petitioner vide its letters dated 17.9.2002 and 23.9.2002, bank while intimating that request made under the sai...
Shri Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT172; 2004(74)DRJ588
R. C. Jain, J.1. The land of the appellants measuring about 1900 sq.yds comprised in Khasra Nos. 619/380, 616/376/2 and 616/376/2 situated in the revenue estate of Chaukri Mubarakabad, Delhi, was acquired through notifications dated 18.9.1987 and 9.2.1988 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') . The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 28/90, assessed the market value of the acquired land of the appellants @ Rs.200/- per sq.yds. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court assessed the market value @ Rs. 2580/- per sq.yds. vide its judgment dated 27.1.1997 and awarded compensation to the appellants at the said rate besides other statutory benefits. Not contended even with the enhanced value of their land the appellants have approached this Court through this appeal.2. Mr. Sumit Bansal, learned counsel representing the appellants has strenuously urged that the assessment of the market value of the acquir...
Dhani Ram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT449; 2004(75)DRJ44
R. C. Jain, J.1. The land of the appellants situated in the revenue estate of village Sabhapur was acquired by the Government for construction of 'bund' vide Notification dated 3.5.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, though its possession had been taken about 10 years prior to the issuance of the said notifications. The land Acquisition Collector based on the Delhi Government order dated 3.5.1990 and treating the land of the appellants as riverbed land assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 31,250/- per bigha with other usual benefits. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge marginally enhanced the compensation by Rs.4687.50 per bigha by giving 15% escalation for a period of 1 year from the order of May 1990 and the issuance of the Notification in May 1991. In addition, the learned Additional District Judge also granted solarium @ 30% of the market value and interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year from th...
Maa Communications Bozell Ltd. Vs. Sh. K.L. Shroff and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT530
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This Court has considered the maintainability of revision petitions against orders declining Leave to Defend under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure in V.S. Saini & Anr. v. D.C.M. Limited, : AIR2004Delhi219 , rendering this Revision not maintainable. On the last date of hearing, on the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, an adjournment was granted in this matter.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the decision in V.S. Saini's case (supra) may not be correct. I find no reason to reconsider the said Judgment and the Petitioner can surely avail of its remedies. Relying on the decision in State of Bihar vs. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh and others, : [2003]3SCR919 it is sought to be contended that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another, : [1982]1SCR187 are not in the nature of obiter dicta but are per incurium . I am unable to appreciate how the decision in Kalika S...
Vinay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 111(2004)DLT597; 2004(74)DRJ675
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. Late Shri Lakshmi Chand was the perpetual lessee of Plot No.1 Block 90, 1, at Jain Mandir Road, New Delhi in pursuance to the lease deed executed on 15.03.1922 and constructed a double storyed building on the said plot some time in 1935. On his demise, the property was mutated vide mutation letter dated 06.06.1963 in the name of the petitioner. 2. It appears that soon thereafter the petitioner made certain additional constructions as per the Resolution of the New Delhi Municipal Committee but the respondent Land & Development Office, Government of India, which was the perpetual Lesser refused to grant permission for the additional construction and further refused to regularise the misuse on the premises. This was set out in the letter dated 09.07.1969. It was further stated that the respondent was willing to reconsider the decision provided the petitioner complied with the terms set out in the letter requiring payment of certain additional charges. The petition...
Usha Rani Vs. Delhi Tourism and Transportation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Reported in: 116(2005)DLT302; 2006(1)SLJ499(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of late Shri Inder Jeet Singh. On 6th October, 1998 while late Sh. Inder Jeet Singh was working as a salesman at the liquor vend operated by respondent No. 1, an attempt to commit dacoity took place at the liquor vend. Late Sh. Inder Jeet Singh fought the armed dacoits. The dacoity was, thus, avoided due to the act of late Sh. Inder Jeet Singh. Unfortunately, he received two bullet injuries in his backbone as a result of which he died.2. Grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, who was an employee of respondent No. 2 i.e. the Excise Commissioner, Government of NCT Delhi was entitled to benefits under the CCS [Extra Ordinary Pension Rules] coupled with the Government of India OM No. 45/55/97-P and PW (c) dated 11.9.1998. Since he was absorbed under respondent No. 1 with his service conditions protected, petitioner was entitled to relief from respondent No. 1.3. It is not disputed that as per the said Office Memorandum, a Government ...
Corvine Chemicals and Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(94)ECC255
1. The only issue arising in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is whether the SCN dt. 22.11.2000 as contemplated under Section 28 of the Customs Act was served on them within a period of six months. The appellants who are manufacturers of chemicals, imported 20,000kgs. of Sodium Nitrite from China. They filed a Bill of Entry on 23.5.2000 claiming exemption of Basic Customs duty benefit in terms of Notification No. 31/97-Cus. dt. 1.4.97. The Bill of Entry was assessed on 23.5.2000 and the appellant paid Counter-vailing Duty @ 16% on 25.5.2000. On 23.5.2000 Govt. of India issued Notification No. 76/2000 imposing Anti-dumping duty on Sodium Nitrite imported from China. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs issued a SCN dt. 22.11.2000 to the appellant demanding Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 2,53,102 on Sodium Nitrite covered by the above mentioned Bill of Entry. The notice was served on the appellant on 29.11.2000. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that since the notice was served...
Mahavir Generics Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC54
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the matter of liability to pay service tax.2. Under an agreement dated 1.1.97 with M/s. Cipla Limited, manufacturer of pharmaceutical generic products, appellant had been functioning as their consignment agent for sale of their products throughout India. When service tax was introduced on Clearing and Forwarding agent service under Chapter 5 of Finance Act 1944 w.e.f.16.7.97 the appellants got themselves registered with the Central Excise authorities and started paying service tax on the commission received by them from M/s. Cipla Limited as consignment agents. It is contended that later on realizing that the services rendered by them would not amount to a taxable service as one rendered by a Clearing and Forwarding agent the surrendered the certificate of registration under letter dated 29.1.2001. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax Ce...
Variety Book Depot Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT171TriDel
2. The applicant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of certain books which were found to be containing obscene literature. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant filed appeal, the same was dismissed.3. The contention of the appellant is that same books were cleared by other Customs authorities without any objection. On specific query from the bench, the counsel for the appellant failed to produce any copy of Bill of Entry showing clearance of the same books. When the appellant placed the order on the foreign supplier without going through the material written in the books. Therefore, they are not entitled for penal action. Their contention is also that they made a request for re-export of the books, which was declined by the competent authority, as the appellants are not interested in clearance of the ...
India Gllycols Ltd. and Shri V.M. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC356
1. Appeal E/3921/2003-NB(A) is filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dt.28.7.2003. The issue raised in this appeal is whether appellants are entitled to take credit on the value of the total quantity of molasses received in its factory for the purpose of manufacture ethyl alcohol without taking into consideration the certain percentage of loss which happens to be storage loss. The Commissioner was of the view that the appellant was not entitled to take Modvat credit on molasses found short in the factory.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no loss of stored molasses and there was only inevitable storage loss due to natural phenomenon. It is submitted that storage loss was well within the prescribed norms of 2% and therefore, the appellant is entitled to take credit on the entire quantity of molasses received in the factory.In support of the above contention the appellant placed reliance on the decision...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »