Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 32 of about 540 results (0.018 seconds)Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs. Jagdish Prashad Modi
Court: Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Order Reserved on:8. th January, 2014 Pronounced on:13. th February, 2014 % + CS(OS) 2321/2011 MANO J K UMA R GOYAL ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate versus JAGDISH PRA SHAD MODI ..... Defendants Through Ms. Rashmi B. Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.1. Vide order dated 30.7.2012, the issue s were framed in the suit and the issue "whether the suit is barred by limitation?." was treated as preliminary issue.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking reco very of a sum of Rs.35,14,100/-. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant had obtained a loan of ======================================================================= CS(OS) 2321/2011 Page 1 of 10 Rs.10,37,000/- from the plaintiff on interest payable at market rate, i.e., 2% per month on 1.5.2001 and executed a receipt for the same. As per the plaintiff, the defendant had undertaken to discharge the liability within...
Tag this Judgment!Mihani Network Vs. C.C.Ex. and S.T., Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard the ld. Consultant Shri A.K. Mishra for the petitioner/appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, ld. A.R. for the Revenue/respondent. 2. The petitioner is the assessee/petitioner. The appeal was preferred on 23.8.2010 against the order dated 21.8.2009 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs , Bhopal. The appeal was partly allowed and the quantum of service tax demand confirmed by the primary authority and proportionate interest and penalties were modified. The appeal was preferred along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 259 days. 3. The application pleads that the Appellate Commissioners order was communicated on 1.9.09 and the appellant approached the Advocate Shri Arup K. Das, resident of Jabalpur practicing in the High Court. The said Advocate had severe personal problems on account of some criminal cases instituted against him by his wife. For the generality of reasons pleaded in paragraphs 4 and 5 , the delay of 259 days occurred...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Cce and St-chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Briefly stated, facts of the case is that the appellant are registered with the Service Tax for providing taxable services of Telecom. However, they were also providing service of inter unit connectivity which was exempt from payment of service Tax prior to 1.6.07. 2. The appellant were also availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit Scheme under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The appellants were availing credit of central excise duties and service tax paid on capital goods, inputs and input services in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules which is used/ utilized by them for providing both taxable and exempted services. The appellant were not maintaining separate accounts for inputs and input services consumed in providing taxable as well as exempted services as required to be maintained by them under Rule 6(2) of the Rules. 3. Rule 3 of the Rules stipulates that a provider of taxable service is allowed to take credit of specified duties and ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Krishnaji Vhatkar Vs. Union of India
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks two reliefs. First, he seeks action U/s. 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 by initiating proceedings against the Ministry of Environment and Forest (Respondent) for non compliance of order passed by this Tribunal on August 2, 2013 in proceeding of Appeal No.61 of 2012. Secondly, he further seeks directions against the Respondent to grant Environment Clearance within period of three (3) months for the mining lease as claimed by him in that Appeal. 2. Before considering merits of the Application, it would be useful to briefly refer to background facts in which the Applicant had preferred appeal (Appeal No.61 of 2012) wherein the order dated August 2, 2013 came to be passed as well as the text of the said order. The Applicant claims that somewhere in 1981, mining lease was granted in his favour over a non forest area situated in village Manoli, (District Kolhapur). He submitted an Application for grant of Environment Clearance to the Mo...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Bhopal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. During the period April, 1999 to August, 2003, the appellant exported 11 transformers without payment of duty to KEMA, Netherlands for the purpose of short-circuit testing. Out of the 11 transformers, four were damaged during the testing. These four damaged transformers were re-imported on payment of basic custom duty and CVD on the full value of the transformers including the testing charges. The appellant took credit of the CVD and used it for payment of duty on the repaired transformers cleared from the appellants factory. The Revenue authorities were of the view that since many parts of the four transformers were damaged and not used in the final product, the proportionate credit availed by the appellant was irregular and liable to be recovered. 2. Accordingly, two Show Causes Notices dated 19.07.2006 and 22.03.2007 were issued for recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs.29,87,473/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh eighty seven thousand four hundred and seventy three only) an...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E., Delhi-iv Vs. M/S. Santosh Engineering Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri BB Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue and Shri KL Handa, Ld. Advocate representing the respondents, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of brass burner tops falling under Chapter 74 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the officers of the Central Excise (Anti-Evasion) on 26.05.2005, who conducted various checks and verifications. Certain shortages were found in the final product, which the respondents accepted and debited the duty of Rs.3,840/- (Rupees three thousand eight hundred and forty only). However, there were certain shortage in respect of raw-materials also. On the basis of that it was alleged that certain captively generated scrap, etc. has not been accounted for. 3. On the above basis, Show Cause Notice date...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhakethalackel Rocks Verses Kerala State Level Environment Impact an ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ranjan Chatterjee, (Expert Member): 1. This is an Appeal challenging the decision taken by Kerala State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short SEIAA) in its meeting dated 13th December, 2012, more particularly numbered as Item No. KLA/13.05, refusing the grant of Environmental Clearance (for short EC) sought for the quarrying project in Survey No. 65/1pt, Kumily Village, Peermade Taluk, District Idukki, Kerala. 2. Item No. KLA/13.05 of the minutes of the above SEIAA meeting, reads as under: œApplication for environmental clearance for the proposed quarry project in Survey no. 65/1 at Kumily Village, Kumily Panchayat, Peermade Taluk, Idukki District, Kerala by M/s Kizhakethalackal Rocks (File No. 40/SEIAA/KL/7084/2012) SEIAA observed that the proposed project site falls within ESZ-1 of Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP). Hence it was decided to reject the proposal and direct the proponent to apply afresh, if required, at a later stage if the Gadgil Commit...
Tag this Judgment!Guddu @ Guchhan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~ 2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 512/1999 GUDDU @ GUCHHAN Through ..... Appellant Ms. Inderjit Sidhu, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ORDER1303.2014 % Non-bailable warrants for arrest of the appellant have not been executed, as per the status report filed.2. At this stage, Ms. Inderjit Sidhu, learned amicus curiae has drawn our attention to paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment dated 10th November, 1998, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:33. Arguing for accused Guddu @ Guchhan, learned counsel Shri Sherwani contended that accused Guddu was under 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the alleged crime and he could not have been tried by this Court. He also mentioned that an occification (sic) test was conducted on accused Guddu to ascertain his age but the Court never gave any finding about his age in the light of the occif...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Delhi
$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 817/2014 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Through: ..... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advs. along with Mr. Suresh Kumar, J.S., MHA & Ms. Damyanti, J.S., DONER, Min. of Dev. of NE Region. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, ASG with Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for Govt of NCT of Delhi along with Mr. P. Karunakaran, DCP, South East Delhi, Mr. Robin Hibu, Joint C.P. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Jaideep Tandon, Adv. for CBI. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel (Civil) with Ms.Sana Ansari, Adv. for Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Standing Counsel for AIIMS. Mr. Upamanyu Hazarika, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Dharitry Phookar, Mr.Paul Roy Paske, Ms.Liyi Marli Noshi, Mr.C.P.Nautiyal, Advs. CORAM: HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 12.02.2014 1. This Court has suo moto taken up this issue and is spending c...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rekha and ors.
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:10. h February 2014 % + MAC.APP. 8/2013 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms.Suman Bagga, Ms.Shruti Shukla and Mr.Dewashish Maharishi, Advocates. Versus REKHA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.Shobhit Mittal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 07.09.2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.11,74,744/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2009 at about 6.45 AM, a Bus bearing No.HP680946 was going from Uttar Kashi towards Gangotari in which deceased Ishwar Chand alongwith his friends and several other passengers were travelling. All of a sudden, the ...
Tag this Judgment!