Delhi Court February 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 4 of about 540 results (0.039 seconds)M/S. Anand International Vs. C.C. (Preventive)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Jindal, J. 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the enhancement of valuation done by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant imported one consignment of sports goods namely, badminton sets with craft declaring value @ U.S.$ 0.48 per set. The Adjudicating Authority was having doubts about the value of the said goods, and therefore, assessed the goods @ U.S. 1 per set. The appellant paid the duty on enhanced value, cleared the goods, and thereafter went before the Commissioner (Appeals) who sought clarification from the Asst. Commissioner who passed the adjudicating order. The Asst. Commissioner replied vide his letter dated 26th November, 2008. Thereafter, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment of Bill of Entry. Aggrieved by the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant d...
Tag this Judgment!Cisco Financial Advisory (India) Vs. Divij Infraproject (P) Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~ 29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision :28. 02.2014 CS(OS) 157/2014 CISCO FINANCIAL ADVISORY (INDIA) ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate versus DIVIJ INFRAPROJECT (P) LTD Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(Oral) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.59,80,000/- under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summons were issued in the prescribed form to the defendant. The defendant stands duly served at both the addresses. However, appearance has not been entered into by the defendant in terms of Order 37 Sub-Rule 3 CPC. Affidavit of service has also been handed over in Court as per which the deponent sent a copy of the plaint along with annexures at both the addressed of the defendant company by registered post as well as speed post. Postal receipts have been placed on record. However, the defendant has refused to accept the envelopes from the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Cce, Chandigarh and Others Vs. M/S. Rambel Consumer Services and Other ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard ld. Counsels for the several appellants and Shri Jain ld., DR for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The appellants herein (except the appellant in ST/206/2011) are either principal agents or sub-agents of overseas entities providing money transfer services, either M/s Western Union Network Ltd. or M/s Money Gram Payment Inc; as the case may be. Other appeals are preferred by Revenue. 3. Assessees have preferred appeals against appellate orders, rejecting appeals and confirming primary adjudication orders levying service tax, interest and penalties on the ground that assessees had provided Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) to either the principal Indian agent, or wherever the assessees are the principal agent to the overseas entity which is in the business of money transfers. Revenue appeals are preferred primarily against orders of appellate Commissioners deleting penalty imposed under Section 76 and on the ground penalties were imposed under Section 78, hence penalty ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bank of Baroda Vs. Cce, Jaipur-i
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. Raghuram, J. 1. Heard ld. Counsel Shri Archit Agarwal for the appellant and Shri Govind Dixit, ld. D.R. for the respondent/Revenue. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-I dated 8.7.2011. This order rejected the appellants appeal preferred against an adjudication order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur-I. The appellate Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax, interest and penalties assessed by the primary authority. 3. Proceedings were initiated by a Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2009 clearly attributing/alleging that the appellant, a housing finance Company and a subsidiary of the Bank of Baroda had provided business auxiliary service, a taxable service defined in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994 (the Act); had received consideration from its customers towards fee for permitting pre-closure of loans; had failed to disclose the consideration so rece...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: February 19, 2014 Judgment Delivered on: February 26, 2014 + WP(C) 1486/2003 MANJIT SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.S.K.Sanan, Advocate with Ms.Mamta Mehra, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Jatan Singh, Advocate along with Major Jitender Singh. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The writ petitioner seeks quashing of the Summary Court Martial Proceedings held on January 15, 2000, culminating in an order of penalty reducing the petitioner in rank and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21 days in Military Custody. As a consequential relief, the petitioner seeks emoluments which would have accrued to him had he not been reduced in rank together with interest @ 18% per annum reckoned from the date the payment become due till when the payment is made.2. Enrolled in the Indian Army in the Sikh Regiment on Dec...
Tag this Judgment!Bishan Swaroop (Since Deceased) Through Lr Vs. Manish Sethi and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: February 26, 2014 + RC. Rev. No.90/2013, C.M. Nos.3679/2013 & 5590/2013 BISHAN SWAROOP (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Aly Mirza, Adv. versus MANISH SETHI & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr.Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. with Ms.Damini Chawla, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH MANMOHAN SINGH, J.1. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned petition filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the DRC Act) against the impugned judgment and order dated 15th February, 2013 passed by Sh.Sanjay Bansal, learned Rent Controller and also against the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2011 passed by Sh.S.K.Malhotra, learned Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No.E-90/2011, titled as Sh.Manish Sethi & Others vs. Bishan Swaroop.2. Brief facts of the matter are that the respondents/landlords filed the eviction petition against the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rama Shukla Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
#2 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 604/2014 DR. RAMA SHUKLA Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Manoj Sharma with Mr. Shaid Ali Rao and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocates. Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA Through ..... Respondent Mr. Gourav Garg, Advocate for Ms. Richa Kapoor, CGSC. Date of Decision :26. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) 1. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to maintain the number of awards as fifteen in accordance with past practice and to constitute a new Screening and Recommending Committee to consider biodata of Prof. Radha Vallabh Tripathi for award of Presidents Certificate of Honour in Sanskrit for the year 2013. Petitioner also prays that above exercise be completed prior to the start of procedure for inviting proposals for Presidents Certificate of Honour for the year 2014.3. Learned counsel for petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Raj Gogia Vs. Bsnl Through the Executive Engineer
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % FAO No.450/2013 26th February, 2014 TILAK RAJ GOGIA Through: ......Appellant Petitioner in person VERSUS BSNL THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ...... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Gaind and Mr. Ashish Kr. Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. I have heard the appellant who is appearing in person and who appears in person in various cases before this Court as well as in other courts.2. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 8.8.2013 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were dismissed.3. The appellant as a contractor was awarded the work of Recarpeting of damaged bituminous road in Telecom Staff Quarters at Vivek Vihar, Delhi-95. After completion of work disputes and differences arose wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sh.Prem Nath Chopra Deceased Thru Lrs Vs. Sh.Arun Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on : January 15, 2014 Judgment Pronounced on : February 26, 2014 + RFA (OS) 13/2014 SH.PREM NATH CHOPRA DECEASED THRU LRS .....Appellant Represented by: Mr.Y.P.Narula, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Aniruddha Choudhary and Mr.Abhay Narula, Advocates versus SH.ARUN CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr.Advocate instructed by Ms.Shweta Bharti, Mr.Shantanu and Mr.Neelesh Sinha, Advocates for R-1 and R-3 to R-6 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. The dispute in the present appeal is between a son of Late Sh.Chanan Das Chopra Prem Nath who died during pendency of the suit and his wife Santosh and two daughters Vipula and Anuradha continuing with the litigation on being substituted as his legal heirs. On the other side pitched against Prem Nath were his nephews, Arun Chopra and Vivek Chopra sons of H.L.Chopra, the brother of Prem Nath. ...
Tag this Judgment!Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 Vs. M/S Nussli (Switzerl ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:24. 02.2014 % + Judgment delivered on:26. 02.2014 O.M.P. 1300/2013 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE COMMONWEALTH GAMES, 2010 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Pragya Nalwa & Ms. Anjali Aggarwal, Advocates versus M/S NUSSLI (SWITZERLAND) LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Amit Singh and Mr. Rajiv Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) by the petitioner to seek a stay of discharge of the performance bank guarantee dated 29.10.2010 issued by HSBC Bank at the behest of the respondent, and to seek a direction to the respondent to keep the said bank guarantee alive till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks the permission to encash t...
Tag this Judgment!