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.
Dr. Yash Nigam Vs. Delhi Medical Council
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT33; 2004(76)DRJ64
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The petitioner is an Orthopedics Doctor and is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2003 passed by the Delhi Medical Council (for short, `DMC'), the respondent herein whereby the petitioner has been debarred from medical practice for a period of six wee s from the date of the said order.2. The matter raised in issue is the jurisdiction of the respondent to proceed against the petitioner since it is the contention of the petitioner that he not being registered with DMC, the respondent Council has no jurisdiction to proceed on disciplinary issue against the petitioner. Medical Council of India (for short, `MCI') was not made a party to the present petition, but this petition was heard along with WP (C) No. 5089/2003, which has also been filed by the petitioner herein in which MCI is impel ded as respondent No. 2. Thus, submissions were heard on behalf of MCI by Mr. Maninder Singh even in the present matter.3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner herein pas...
Deepak Hastir and ors. Vs. S.P. Aggarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT30
B.C. Patel, C.J.1. The learned Single Judge on 11.09.2003, in a contempt proceeding, passed an order. The relevant portion reads as under:'Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has not been complete compliance with the said judgment, inasmuch as the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Deputy Assessor and Collector on adhoc basis with effect from 27.7.1995. Reliance is placed on the penultimate sentence of the Order extracted above. However, there was no absolute direction passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in respect of promotion to Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Assessor and Collector. It would not be proper to go into this issue in Contempt Proceedings, even if it is more than plausible that the contention of Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioners, is correct. In respect of future promotions the petitioners have their remedy.If so advised, the petitioners may also agitate the application of F.R. 17 to restrict the financial benefits.Since ...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Citilink Airways Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 114(2004)DLT285; 2004(77)DRJ221
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This suit involves the interpretation of Order xxxvII and the summary procedure to be followed upon entering of appearance by the defendant under Order xxxvII rule 3. The proceedings in this case eloquently demonstrate how undue insistence of repeated service upon the defendant can defeat the ends of justice in the name of procedural fairness. 2. It is not in dispute that on 23rd August, 1993, the defendant entered appearance through Mr. Jasbir Singh as per xxxvII Rule 1 and gave his address for service as 151, Civil Wings Chambers, Tis Hazari,Delhi. 3. Summons for judgment are required to be taken out under clause (4) of Order xxxvII Rule 3 CPC. The Order xxxvII Rule 3 CPC reads as under:-'3. Procedure for the appearance of defendant --(1) In a suit to which this Order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under rule 2, serve on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the defendant may, at any time within ten days of such servi...
Sri Ganesh Research Institute Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR221(Delhi); 115(2004)DLT410
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. By these orders I shall dispose of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in which it has been prayed that, pending arbitration, the respondents be directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month commencing from 15th January, 2001, in lieu of cheques already issued by them. The property in question comprises the urban/rural premises measuring 7695 sq. ft of stables and Manager's House of Jai Vilas Palace, Mount Abu (Rajasthan). The lease deed is between the President of India and petitioner through the defense Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle; Jaipur.2. I am of the opinion that this Court does not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. I had suggested that the petition be returned with liberty to file it in Courts at Mount Abu or any other Court possessing territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Singla, however, has insisted that it is only the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of defense, South...
Kundan Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT111TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant made import of Butter Oil and declared the unit price of US$ 1100 per m.t. The value declared by the appellant was not accepted by the Customs Authorities and the same was enhanced to US$ 1560 per m.t.2. The contention of the appellant is that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the other importers such as M/s.Nestle India Ltd. and M/s. Sterling Agro made import of butter oil from the same country of origin. The contention is that infact M/s. Nestle India Ltd. made import of butter oil from Belgium whereas the appellant made import from France. It is further contended that M/s. Nestle India made import of butter oil packed in consumer packs of 1 kg., 2 kg.whereas the appellant made import in bulk i.e. containers of 200 kgs.The appellant also produced a Bill of Entry filed by M/s. M.K.Marketing declaring the import of butter oil @ USS 1150 per m.t. ...
Winsome Yarns Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT286TriDel
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is a 100% E.O.U. and are engaged in the manufacture of yarn. Appellant receives semi-finished yarn without payment of duty under CT-3 certificate issued by competent authority and thereafter processes the yarn. The processed yarn was exported. The duty was demanded in the impugned order in respect of the semi-finished yarn received by the appellant on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellant on the semi-finished yarn does not amount to manufacture as per the provision of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act.3. Contention of the appellant is that there is no dispute that they were receiving semi-finished yarn without payment of duty under CT-3 certificates issued by the competent authority. Vide Circular No.314/30/97-CX., dated 6-5-97 Board has clarified that the term 'manufacture' for the purpose of export is wider in meaning than that used in Section 2(f) of...
Parasrampuria International Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(96)ECC33
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Parasrampuria International is whether the Basic Customs duty which is exempted from payment of duty is to be included in the assessable value for the purpose of levying the Additional Customs duty.2. Shri M.P. Singh, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants, a 100% E.O.U., manufacture various types of yarn; that they had sold polyester viscose blended yarn to M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. who were holding the Quantity Based Advance Licence against release Order, on payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 82/92-CE dated 27.8.92; that subsequently they filed a refund claim as they had paid duty in excess of the duty leviable since they had added the amount of basic customs duty which was otherwise exempted in the assessable value for arriving at the value for the purpose of determining the duty; that the Asst. Commissioner under Order-in-Original dated 11.4.97 sanctioned the refund to them ...
Dinesh Pouches Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT313TriDel
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala, falling under sub-headings 21 and 24 as Pan Masala both containing Tobacco as well as not containing Tobacco. They had cleared the Pan Masala containing Tobacco under sub-heading 2404.49 for the period 1-3-2001,to 31-3-2001 and product was to be assessed as per the value computed under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act whereas the department was of the view that they have to pay the duty on the clearance on MRP as provided in the Notification 5/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 and issued under Section 4A of the Rules with a corrigendum issued on 2-3-2001 published in the gazette. The demand was confirmed on the above basis. Hence this appeal.2. We find that there is no merit in the plea of the Appellants that the introduction of sub-heading 2404.49 covering Pan Masala containing Tobacco was not valid as such a change can be brought about by the amendment to the Notification and not by issuing a mere corrigendum, as this...
inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)(116)LC674Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of LPG Cylinders falling under Chapter Heading 73 of the Schedule to CETA 1985 which are being sold to oil companies in the Public Sector. Show cause notice dated 28.2.2001 was issued to them porposing recovery of differential duty as a result of including cost of transportation in the assessable value since the appellants had taken transit insurance cover, which, according to the Revenue would show that the property in the goods remained with the appellants till delivery to their customers. The notice was issued on the basis of the Tribunal's decisions in the case of Escorts JCB v. CCE New Delhi 1999 (35) RLT 9 and CCE Meerut v. Prabhat Zarda Factory . The Notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,65,918/-together with interest and also imposed an amount of penalty equal to duty under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise ...
Ch. Raghvendra Singh Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)1SOT83(Delhi)
All these appeals by the assessee are directed to be disposed of by a composite order. The assessees counsel Shri Chandiok at the outset stated that the facts and circumstances of the case of Ch. Raghvendra Singh, Chairman and Director of M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. are the same with all other cases in appeals before the Tribunal and, therefore, Opted and argued by highlighting the facts of these cases with the praver to apply the same decision in all other appeals also. This prayer was allowed. We, therefore, proceed by recording the fact and the arguments with reference to the case of Ch. Raghvendra Singh as under.2. Facts of the present case are that the appellant was the Chairman and Director of M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. It has a subsidiary by the name M/s DLF Hotels Ltd. M/s DLF Hotels owned a house at Aurengzeb Road in highly posh area of New Delhi. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. took on rent the said house from DLF Hotels Ltd. The said house is claimed to have three independents units. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »