Delhi Court July 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.
Kartar Kaur Etc. Vs. Jasbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT218
R.S. Sodhi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 365/1982, which appeal was preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th April, 1982, awarding benefit under sub-Section 2 to Section 14 to the appellant herein on compliance of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and further ordering the eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Tribunal are as under :'(2) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent filed a petition for eviction with respect to the property in dispute detailed in the eviction application. The grounds of eviction taken up by the respondent were under clause (a), (e), (d) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to Section 14 of the Act. Of these grounds, the ground of eviction under clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 14 ...
S.C. Manchanda Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT529; 2004(77)DRJ623; [2005(104)FLR1086]; (2005)ILLJ228Del
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks writ for quashing of the order dated 2.7.1996 passed by the General Manager rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.2. Petitioner had been working as Clerk-cum-Shroff with the respondent bank. He was promoted as an Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 31.12.1981. In July, 1988, the petitioner was posted at the Jullundur branch. The petitioner absented from duty from 16.7.1988, without sanction of any leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a unfortunate case where the petitioner had lost his balance of mind and had abandoned his whole family and remained missing for over seven years.3. It is stated that it is only after eight years that the petitioner returned home. Learned counsel submits that as the petitioner had lost his balance of mind and was not conscious of his actions, the case ought to have been considered sympathatically. His absence should not have been treated as una...
Surendra Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Attar Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-08-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT914
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2001 passed in EA 225/1999 in Ex. No. 69/96.2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:3. Attar Chand Jain, decree holder purchased the property in question in auction. This is not disputed that the possession of the property except Shop No. 615 is with the auction purchaser. Shop No. 615 is stated to be in occupation of Surender Kumar Jain and Devender Kumar Jain. Warrants of possession for delivery of the physical possession of the premises were issued. Objections were filed in which it was stated that the property in dispute had been purchased by late Ram Chand. On the ground floor, the business was started under the name and style of M/s. Kedar Nath Ram Chand. The said business was dissolved on 6.7.1941. Thereafter Ram Chand's two sons Nem Chand and Moti Lal started the partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Nem Chan...
Office Tec Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC448
1. Both the appeals relate to alleged import of photocopiers. The appellants declared the imported consignments as "old and used main frame assembly for photocopier". Individual parts and their prices were also separately given in the invoice filed along with the Bill of Entry. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the goods under import were actually photocopier in unfinished condition in terms of Rule 2(a) of General Rules for the interpretation of Customs Tariff.Value for the purpose of assessment was also enhanced in line with the price of photocopiers.2. The present appeals contend that there is no justification for treating the imported items as photocopiers. During the hearing of the case, the Counsel for the appellants mentioned that, in terms of the order of the High Court, expert opinion had been obtained from M/s.Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai and that opinion had confirmed that items were only parts. The ld. Counsel took us through the expert opinion a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Munjal Gases
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT173TriDel
2. The Revenue filed this reference application for referring the question of law.3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Munjal Gases raised a preliminary objection that the reference application is not maintainable as the issue involved in the appeal is in respect of rate of duty.4. We find that the Tribunal in the Final Order No. 500 & 501 /99-C, dated 25-6-99 held that the assessee is entitled for the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93. Section 35G of the Central Excise Act provides that Commissioner of Central Excise or other party may require to the Tribunal to refer the High Court the question of law arising out of order passed under Section 35C (not being an order relating to determination of any question having relation to rate of duty or value of goods for purposes of assessment).5. In view of the provisions of Section 35G of the Act, we find force in the preliminary objection raised by the assessee. In the present case the issue involved is in resp...
In Re: Hotline Hol Celdings Pvt. Ltd.; in Re: Fusebase India Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: [2006]4CompCas558(Delhi); 112(2004)DLT627; 2004(76)DRJ50; (2004)138PLR12; [2005]57SCL367(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J. 1. This petition is filed in this Court to obtain sanction to a Scheme of Amalgamation of Hotline Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Fusebase India Pvt. Ltd., Hotline International Pvt. Ltd., Netillennium Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Protek Components (India) Ltd. (Transferor Companies) with Fusebase Eltoro Pvt. Ltd. (Transferee Company).2. Earlier a joint application (CA (M) No.162/2003) was filed by these companies, who are joint applicants in the present application also, under Section 391 of the Companies Act seeking dispensing with the requirement of convening and holding of the meeting of the equity shareholders and creditors of the applicant companies for the purpose of considering and approving the proposed scheme of amalgamation with Fusebase Eltoro Pvt. Ltd. (Transferee Company). This was allowed vide order dated 5th March, 2004. It was noted in the said order as under:-' The registered office of the applicant-Transferor companies A to E as well as Transferee company is situated a...
Manmohan Nath Vs. Subhash Chander and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT169; 2004(76)DRJ56
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Civil Revision No. 331 of 2001 is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 15.1.2001 in E-70/90 whereby the learned Rent Controller has allowed the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been set down in the judgment under challenge, are that :'petitioners claim themselves to be the owner/landlord of the demised premises comprising of one room, mainabove the front corridor, one verandah with two sides open at the back, kitchen, store, bath and WC with a common use of the back courtyard in the suit premises which is under the tenancy of the respondent let out and used for residential purposes. It is the case of the petitioner is that the suit premises is a three storeyed building and the ground floor portion comprises of two rooms let out for commercial purposes to two different tenants plus the tenancy portion with the respondent in a tin shed at the rear of the premises which is...
Executive Engineer, Fabrication Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC676Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been directed against the impugned order-in-appeal by the appellants vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority, who confirmed the duty demand with penalty as detailed therein.2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the activity of the appellants of producing transformed structure from the MS rods, MS channels, etc. amounts to manufacture. The adjudicating authority held this issue against the appellants and confirmed the duty demand for the disputed period ranging July 1996 to May 1997 through order-in-original which has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The earned Counsel has contended that the above referred issue already stands covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/204 & 205/91-D dated 8.4.1991 in the case of CCE, Madurai v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned JDR h...
Seth Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT207TriDel
1. This is an application by M/s. Seth Alloys Pvt. Ltd., for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,56,275/-imposed on them under the impugned Order.2. Shri J.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture M.S. ingots which were chargeable to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act on the basis of Annual Capacity of Production as determined by the Commissioner; that the penalty has been imposed on them as they had failed to discharge the duty liability during the period from September, 1997 to March, 1999 within the stipulated period; that the applicants have discharged the entire duty liability along with interest before the issue of show cause notice and in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sun Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II, 2004 (62) RLT 775 penalty is not imposable on them. The learned Advocate alternatively submitted that in a similar case the Tribunal had directed the applicants therein to deposit 10% ...
Om Prakash Jayaprakash and Co. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2004
Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC361
1. The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by M/s. Om Prakash Jayaprakash & Co., relates to rejection of refund claims filed by them.2. Shri Naveen Mullick, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture processed man-made fabrics and availed Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs; that under Notification No. 29/96-CE dated 3.6.96, the eligibility of the deemed credit was prescribed for the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products; that they had filed two claims for refund of deemed Modvat Credit remained in balance in their deemed credit register during the course of export under bond for the period from April, 1998 to June, 1998 and remained unutilised towards payment of Central Excise duty on their specified final products cleared for home consumption; that the Assistant Commissioner has rejected both the refund claims and on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also, under the impugned order, has rejected their appeals, holding that the appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »