Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 37 of about 723 results (0.019 seconds)C.C.E., Ludhiana Vs. M/S. Abhishek Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri RK Mishra, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue and Shri Sanjay Malhotra, Ld. Consultant, appearing for the respondents. 2. As per facts on record, respondents are engaged in the manufacture of paper and chemicals, etc. and are availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services. They were issued Show Cause Notice alleging that they were availing the benefit of commission paid to sole selling agents and in as much as the some of the papers were exempted, they were not entitled to avail credit of service tax on the commission paid to the sole selling agents. The respondents accepted their liability to the extent of Rs.5,52,226/- out of the total proposed demand of Rs.6,86,772/- and in fact reversed the said amount even before the issue of Show Cause Notice. According to the respondents, the said...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Shree Bankey Behari Concast (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots. Their factory was visited by the officers on 04.12.2008, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortage of 130.175MT of inputs, i.e., sponge iron was detected. The appellants accepted the said shortage and reversed the CENVAT credit of Rs.3,52,899/- on 04.12.2008 itself. 2. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against them, resulting in confirmation of demand of duty as also for imposition of penalty of identical amount. The appellants deposited 25% of the penalty imposed upon them within a period of 30 days from the passing of the impugned order. 3. They also challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) and prayed for reduction of penalty to the extent of 25%. However, Commissioner (Appeals) did not extend the benefit of reduction on the ground that the same has been imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which do not provide for any such reduct...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar and ors. Vs. Salwan Public School and anr.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on January 17, 2014 + W.P.(C) 5820/2011 VINOD KUMAR AND ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr.Madhusudan Sharma Shastri, Advocate. versus SALWAN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) 1. Three out of five claimants have approached this Court through this writ petition challenging the award dated August 13, 2010 passed in I.D. No.98 of 2010 (new) and 434 of 2008 (old), whereby the Labour Court has granted a compensation of Rs. 75000/- in favour of Vinod Kumar and Santosh Kumar, petitioner Nos. 1 an d 2 respectively, and ` 50,000/- in favour of Bhagwat, petitioner No.3 against the respondent in lieu of reinstatement in service with back wages.2. The case of the petitioners was that they have been appointed on December 26, 1995, October 5, 1995 and January 3, 1999 as Safaikaramchari on a salary of ` 2419/-. They would also...
Tag this Judgment!Himalya International Ltd Vs. Simplot India Foods Pvt Ltd (Simplot Ind ...
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on :06. 12.2013 Judgment Pronounced on:17. 01.2014 + CS(OS) 1231/2013 HIMALYA INTERNATIONAL LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. V.Shankara, Advocate versus SIMPLOT INDIA FOODS PVT LTD (SIMPLOT INDIA) (LLC) & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhu Sweta, Mr. Ravi Singhania and Mr.Sumit Gupta, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA No.12140/2013(Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC) 1. This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint.2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree against the defendants for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding before Singapore International Arbitration Centre for arbitration in alleged violation of Shareholders Agreement dated 6th October , 2011 and Master Agreement dated 24th August, 2012.3. The averment of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ram Kishan Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10266/2009 SHRI RAM KISHAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Modi, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Adv. for R-2/UBI Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S. Parihar and Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocates for R-3/DICGC. Reserved on :16. h December, 2013 Date of Decision :17. h January, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction against the respondent thereby quashing the provisions of section 16(2) of The Deposit, Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961, being ultra vires and unconstitutional; ii) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in favour of the petitioner and against th...
Tag this Judgment!Dtc and anr. Vs. Jai Chand
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:17. h January, 2014 + MAC.A.487/2006 & CM No.7800/2006 DTC AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus JAI CHAND ..... Respondent Represented by: None. AND MAC.A.205/2009 & CM No.5833/2009 DTC AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr. J.N. Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus TARA CHAND ..... Respondent Represented by: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the aforenoted appeal bearing MAC. APP. No.487/2006, the appellant/Corporation has MACA Nos.487/2006 & 205/2009 assailed the impugned award 05.04.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.15,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Vide appeal appellant/Corporation bearing has MAC. assailed the APP. No.205/2009, impugned award the dated 27.07.2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted comp...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Islam Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Judgment:17.01.2014. CRL.REV.P. 685/2013 & Crl. M.(B) No.2402/2013 MOHD. ISLAM ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Haneef Mohammad, Adv. versus THE STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.(Oral) 1 This revision petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2013 wherein while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29.09.2011, the sentence had been modified. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC had sentenced the petitioner to undergo SI for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 2 months. This was for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. For the offence under Section 279 of the IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months; the Sessions Judge had modified the sentence and had reduce...
Tag this Judgment!Surender Prashad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: January 17, 2014 + CRL.A. 245/2002 SURENDER PRASHAD Through: ..... Appellant Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrP.C), the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 12.04.2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/363/364/201 Indian Penal Code Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and vide order on sentence dated 16.04.2001, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months under section 302 IPC; imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Kumar Vs. Northern Railway and ors
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:17. 01.2014 W.P.(C) No.320/2014 AJAY KUMAR .... Petitioner versus NORTHERN RAILWAY AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr Saurabh Gautam : Mr Neeraj Atri and Mr Jairaj Mudgul, for Northern Railways CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM No.639/2014 The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) No.320/2014 & CM No.638/2014 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia sought the following reliefs:(I) A writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the like nature thereby quashing impugned action(s) of the respondents including all orally communicated order(s) resulting in rejection of lowest bid of petitioner vis-a-vis tender No.232-Elect/EMU/WC-27/12-13 for the work of: fabrication, supply & fitment (Provision) of stainless steel item...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:17. 01.2014 + CRL.A. 166/2010 DEEPAK STATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr Medhanshu Tripathi, Adv. versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN, J.(Oral) On 28.06.2004, the complainant Manoj, who at that time used to work with CMS Security Limited and collect cash from different organizations was robbed of Rs 4,00,000/- on Press Enclave Road at about 2.00 PM. Two persons travelling on a motorcycle were involved in the robbery. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2004, three persons, travelling in a car, were stopped on suspicious, were interrogated and arrested and pursuant to the disclosure statements made by two of them, namely, Manjit Singh and Naresh Kumar, Rs 10,000/were recovered. This is also the case of the prosecution that the third person Rishi Pal took them to his house No.7, Humayunpur and got recovered a raxin bag, containing Rs 30,000/- and...
Tag this Judgment!