Delhi Court February 2014 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.
M/S. Orange Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc, Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
D.N. Panda, J. 1. None present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application. 2. In the absence of appellant assistance of Revenue was taken and also the ground of appeal of the appellant perused. The goods imported by the appellant is stated in para 1.1 of the adjudication order and that does not remain in dispute. The dispute is only of usage of the goods in this case. 3. Revenue found out that the goods imported was not merely GPS but also a tracker which is fitted into a vehicle to know the direction at any point of time and also to receive the data through GPS receiver. The goods so imported had the characteristics of much more than the mere GPS. The system serves the purpose of relaying/ transmitting data about itself, vehicle owner etc. This enables an owner of the vehicle to be aware of the fuel consumption, Mileage, tampering and accidents etc. The goods imported being of such peculiar and special nature, Revenue opined that such goods cannot be imported without l...
C.C.E.and.S.T., Rohtak Vs. M/S. Aradhana Soft Drinks Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After rejecting the Revenues prayer for staying the operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I proceed to decide the appeal itself in as much as a short issue is involved. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of aerated bottled for which they have received the new bottles and crates as also the old re-used bottles and crates. In respect of new bottles, the appellants are availing the CENVAT credit. However, the old and used bottled received by the appellants, the same are reflected in a separate record maintained by them. 3. The respondents have another sister unit engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. Sometimes, on requirement basis, the old and used glass bottles and crates are transferred by the appellants to their sister unit. Revenue by entertaining a view that the respondents are liable to reverse the CENVAT credit in respect of such bottled so transferred by them to their sister unit, initiated proceedings them, ...
M/S. the Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Lucknow
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-2014
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on welding electrodes and gases used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that the said activity cannot be held to be an activity associated with the manufacturing process and as such cannot be called as cenvatable input.2. I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh and also by Hon'ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Karnataka. In the latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samruddhi Cement Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore [2013 (297) E.L.T. 562 (Tri. Del.)] has considered an identical issue and the entire case law including the contra-judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and has come to the conclusion that the duty paid on the items used for repairs and maintenance would be available as CE...
Georgy Soman Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:6. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 429/2006 GEORGY SOMAN Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Vide the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned award dated 18.10.2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization of the amount.2. Present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount noted above.3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.09.2003 at about 7.30 am, the appellant/injured was standing near Holy Child School, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, to board a bus for Azadpur. A bus bearing registration No.DL-1PB-2518 came there, which used to drop the ...
Sarla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment reserved on :30.01.2014 Judgment delivered on 06.02.2014. CRL.A. 64/2006 SARLA Through ..... Appellant Mr. Sumit Verma, Adv. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J.The appellant before this Court is Sarla. She has been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A and Section 376 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. She had been charged under Section 376 (g) of the IPC but had been acquitted of the said charge. For the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, she had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 days. For the offence under Section 366-A of the IPC, she had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2- years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 15 days. For the offence under Section 376 read with Section 120-B ...
Rajeev Dhawan Vs. Cpio, (Sh. N. Jayaraman) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA10762011 RAJEEV DHAWAN Through: ..... Appellant Appellant-in-person versus CPIO, (SH. N. JAYARAMAN) & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate Reserved on :26. h November, 2013 Date of Decision:6. h February, 2014 % CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J:1. Present letters patent appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2011 passed by learned Single Judge whereby appellants writ petition being W.P.(C) 4149/2011 was dismissed by a common order. It is pertinent to mention that by virtue of the impugned order dated 12th October, 2011, appellants three writ petitions were dismissed.2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents stated that the present appeal had to be disposed of in accordance with the judgment and order dated 16th April, 2013 passed by another Division Bench of this Court whereby appellants appeal being LPA No.1043/2011 aris...
Smt.Sushila Devi and ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:6. h February, 2014 % + MAC.APP. 660-63/2006 SMT.SUSHILA DEVI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr.O.P.Mannie, Advocate. Versus NARESH KUMAR & ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Zahid Ali for Mr. A.K. De, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 05.05.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal had granted compensation for a sum of Rs.30,76,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount.2. The present appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation amount noted above.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that Naresh Kumar died in the accident occurred on 09.10.2003. On the said date, he was around 38 years old, as his date of birth was 15.01.1966. During the trial, mother of the deceased had expire...
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI :17. h December, 2013 Date of Decision :6. h February, 2014 Reserved on % + W.P.(C) 7459/2013 & & CM APPL. 15956/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ... Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person with Ms. Suman and Mr. Sadashir Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA Through : ... Respondent Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC, Mr. Vineet Tayal and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, CHIEF JUSTICE:1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (for short, impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India (for short, the Constitution), vitiated by mala fides and against the general public interest. Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned Amendment and...
Manjit Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : November 06, 2013 DECIDED ON : February 06, 2014 + CRL.A. 803/2000 MANJIT SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Mr.S.S.Das, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. Manjeet Singh (A-1), Bhupinder Singh (A-2), Parminder Singh (A-3) (since dead) and Harminder Singh (A-4) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 21.11.2000 in Sessions Case No.102/97 arising out of FIR No.679/91 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar by which they were convicted under Sections 307/326/325/323/324/342/34 IPC. By an order dated 30.11.2000, they were given various prison terms with fine.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as projected in the charge- sheet was that on 29.11.1991 at about 11.00 P.M. at public street near House No.T-235, A-15, Baljit Nagar, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Ramesh Kumar ...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. A.P.Constructions
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision:06. 02.2014 % OMP No.136/2004 DELHI JAL BOARD Through: ..... Petitioner Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate with Ms. Ravneet Kaur, Advocate versus A.P.CONSTRUCTIONS Through: .....Respondent Mr. Vivekanand, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI VIPIN SANGHI, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to seek the setting aside of Award dated 08.01.2004 read with its correction dated 15.01.2004. The respondentcontractor was awarded the work of construction of SW Drainage of Adarsh Nagar Group of Colonies Part IIB. The agreement was signed on 13.02.1998. The contract was an item rated one, based on the schedule of quantities given in the tender documents. The completion period was 18 months, and the completion date was reckoned from 12.02.1998. The work was not completed on the scheduled date and time for completion was extended. It was completed on...