Delhi Court August 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.
Shri Ram Chhordas Garwal Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC104
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order-in-Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original regarding the confiscation of the goods (silver bullion/jewellery) but reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 as confirmed by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 20,000.2. The learned counsel has contended that there is no evidence on record to prove the foreign origin of the seized goods much less the smuggling of the same by the appellants to India from Nepal as alleged by the department. The alleged confessional statement was retracted by the appellants immediately on his production before the Magistrate on 30.1.2000 and later on before the adjudicating authority on 5.5.2000 after his release on bail on 4.5.2000 by the order of the court and as such, the same could not be made basis for passing the impugned order against him.3. On the other hand, the learned SDR has contended that the confessional statement of the appellant is suf...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prem Khalsa Iron and Steel Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2004)(98)ECC413
1. The respondents herein are engaged in job work for conversion of raw material i.e. semi-finished goods of iron and steel products supplied by Steel Authority of India Limited into finished goods, which are sold on behalf of the SAIL. Declarations were filed by them in Annexure-II Proforma as required under the proviso to Rule 173C(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for determination of the value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. No break-up of sale value of SAIL was given.The Department was of the view that the prices claimed for approval on the basis of selling price of such goods by the SAIL was not correct as the respondents are job workers and clearing the goods after paying duty directly from their factory to the consumer and that no comparable goods are sold at Mandi Gobindgarh by SAIL. Thus the clearances of goods at the factory gate were required to be considered as independent sale and the respondents were thus required to file declaration by considering the lan...
Panama Chemical Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC483
1. The issue involved in this Appeal, filed by M/s. Panama Chemical Works, is whether the products namely, 'Panjon Cough Drops', Panjon Balm' and 'Panjon Rub', manufactured by them, are classifiable as Ayurvedic medicaments.2.1 Shri G.S. Agrawal, learned Advocate, mentioned that the products in question have been approved by the Food and Drugs Authorities of State of Madhya Pradesh as Ayurvedic Medicines; that the ingredients used by them in their different products are as under : 2.2 The learned Advocate submitted that the charge levelled by the Revenue is that the Appellants are using Eucalyptus oil I.P. (Nilgiri Tel) and Wintergreen Oil (Gandh Puri ka Tel) (synthetic) in Panjon Balm; that in Panjon Cough Drops and in Panjon Rub the ingredients contained include Eucalyptus Oil I.P.; that Methyl Salicylate (synthetic) is used in the manufacture of Panjon Balm only and not other two preparations in question; that all the three impugned products are Ayurvedic medicaments as the same ar...
R.G.S. International Private Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC117
1. Heard Counsel, and perused the records. This appeal has been presented against the impugned Order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application LA.826/2004 filed on behalf of the appellant-defendants to direct the return of the O.A. for presentation to the Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction over Noida (Uttar Pradesh).2. The respondent-Federal Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-bank') filed O.A. 103/2001 before the DRT for the recovery of the money stated to be due to it. In paragraph 16 of the O.A. the respondent-bank has alleged about the creation of an equitable mortgage in its favour in respect of an immovable property at Noida. The respondent-bank has also made a prayer in the O. A. for the sale of the said property for the realisation of the amount stated to he due to it.The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that Section 16 of the Civil ...
Department of Forests and Wildlife Govt. of Nct of Delhi Vs. Union of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT417; 2004(76)DRJ332
D.K. Jain, J.1. By these ten writ petitions, filed by the Department of Forests and Wildlife, a wing of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, a direction is sought to the Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi, to determine afresh the compensation already paid for acquisition of land in village Tuglakabad, Delhi, after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. 2. Since a common question of facts and law is raised in all the writ petitions, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of CWP No. 8682/2003 are being taken as illustrative. 3. The three respondents respectively are: (i) The Union of India, through, Land Acquisition Collector (South), Saket, New Delhi (for short 'the LAC'); (ii) Land and Building Department, through, Secretary (LandB), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi and (iii) the owner of the subject land. 4. According to the petitioner the process for acquisition of subject land for se...
Sukh Bahadur (Aas Bahadur) Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT221
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on April 22, 1998 and April 25, 1998, respectively, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302/392 Indian Penal Code read with section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- or simple imprisonment for fifteen days for offence under section 302 I.P.C., and also to undergo imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- or simple imprisonment for fifteen days for offence under section 25 of the Arms Act, and for offence under section 392 I.P.C. a fine of Rs.500/- or simple imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. On September 21, 1993 at about 8.00 A.M. the wireless operator of the police received information from the P.C.R. that a message had been received from telephone No. 6802626, DLF Chattarpur, Amar Niwas Farms, sent by the chowkidar of the said house than Shri Hardev Singh Kandhari had been stabbed an...
Smt. Bimla Rani W/O Sh. Padam Bahadur and ors. Vs. Appellate Authority ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT441; [2005(104)FLR34]; (2005)IILLJ148Del; 2005(1)SLJ481(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioners are ladies employed with Respondent No.2. They had filed a claim under Section 7(1)(b) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (the Act) claiming the same pay-scale as granted to men performing the same work. 2. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows: - ''7. Power of appropriate Government to appoint authorities for hearing and deciding claims and complaints. - (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification, appoint such officers, not below the rank of a Labour Officer, as it thinks fit to be the authorities for the purpose of hearing and deciding. (a) XXX XXX XXX (b) claims arising out of non-payment of wages at equal rates to men and women workers and may, by the same or subsequent notification, define the local limits within which each such authority shall exercise its jurisdiction. (2) to (8) XXX XXX XXX'' 3. According to the Petitioners, they were working as Packers since sometime in 1978. By an order dated 8th October, 1984, they were ...
N.P. JaIn and Co. Vs. Sh. Moti Lal Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC496; 2004(76)DRJ638
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an application under Order xxxvII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short the `CPC') filed by the defendant No.1. 2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is for recovery of Rs.58,47,428.00(Rs. Fifty Eight Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Hundred Twenty Eight only with interest). The substratum of this suit is based upon the following averments:-(a) that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of Non-Ferrous Metal Scraps in Delhi.(b) that the defendant No.1 with the help of defendants 2 & 3 was also carrying on the same business and used to purchase the same products from the plaintiff for the last about years. (c) that an agency was sought by the defendants on consignment basis and the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants and defendants M/s Nathu Ram Muni Lal were appointed an agent to sell the commodities of the plaintiff on commission basis.(d) that the defendants have sold the material which according to the plaintiff is worth of Rs.1...
Malu Housing Products Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ARBLR139(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ614
Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an petition under Sections 11 & 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of an independent arbitrator. 2. The parties to this petition entered into an Agreement 27th November, 2002 for `Providing and laying Paver Blocks Driveway at OSTS PALARI, Distt. PALI'. The petitioner is the Malu Housing Products and the respondent is the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.(in short the `BPCL'). Clause 76 of the Agreement between the parties providing for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration reads as follows:-'Clause 19(a): Any disputes or difference of any nature whatsoever any claim, Gross claim, or set off the Corporation against the Contractor or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relating to this agreement shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of the Director (Marketing) of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Directo...
Campari Vs. P.O. Labour Court-ix and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: 113(2004)DLT331; (2005)ILLJ212Del
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J. 1. A reference was made in 1998 to the learned Labour Court with regard to the alleged illegal termination of the respondent-workman,2. Summons was issued to the petitioner on 7th January, 1999 but it appears that the summons was issued in the name of M/s. Campari Exports while the name of the petitioner is said to be Campari. The summons, which was sent by Registered A.D. post, was refused by the petitioner.3. In view of this refusal, the learned Labour Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner by an order dated 14th May, 1999. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of the respondent-workman and passed an ex parte award on 9th August, 2001.4. Much later, the petitioner came to know about the passing of the ex parte award and, thereforee, it moved an application on 13th November, 2002 under the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for setting aside the ex parte order as well as the ex parte award. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »