Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: delhi Year: 2003 Page 10 of about 266 results (0.030 seconds)

Nov 07 2003 (HC)

Smt. Maya Jethanand Daryani and ors. Vs. Smt. Avtar Mohan Singh and or ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-07-2003

Reported in : AIR2004Delhi79

ordermanmohan sarin, j.1. by this judgment is nos. 6043/2003, 7722/2003 and 7728/2003 moved by m/s. mitsui and company ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant', for short) are being decided. is no. 6043/2003 is an application moved under section 151, cpc by the applicant, filing objections to the order dated 17th july, 2000, decreeing the suit and order dated 25th october, 2000, giving directions and appointing a receiver for demarcation of plot nos. 28 and 28-a, prithviraj road, new delhi. prayer is made for modification of the order dated 25th october, 2002 and keeping its operation in abeyance, till decision of the application. is no. 7728/2003 is an application moved under order 1, rule 10, cpc, by the applicant seeking impleadment in the suit already decided on 17th july, 2000. the last is no. 7722/2003 is an application moved by the applicant under order xxi, rules 97 and 101 read with sections 47, 141 and 151, cpc, to declare the decree passed in the suit as null and void and to keep in abeyance the directions for demarcation.2. before we consider the above applications on merits and the objections raised as to their maintainability, it would be necessary to notice the facts, essential and relevant for decision of these applications.3. the plaintiffs vide an agreement dated 16th september, 1975, agreed to purchase from defendant no. 1. smt. avtar mohan singh (widow of bhai mohan singh), defendant no. 2 dr. parvinder singh. defendant no. 3-mr. analjit singh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2003 (HC)

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Abid Raza Zaidi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-26-2003

Reported in : 2004(74)DRJ218; 2004(2)SLJ369(Delhi)

mukul mudgal, j.1. rule.2. with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.3. this writ petition challenges the award dated 15th october, 1999 by labour court no. iii in i.d. no. 58 of 1993. the respondent no. 1 by his statement of claim had sought regularization as a garden chaudhary in m.c.d. the labour court while rejecting the plea of regularization but by noticing the long period over which respondent no. 1 had worked as a garden chaudhary since 2nd november, 1989 granted only the emoluments due to a garden chaudary.4. the main plea raised by ms. amita gupta, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the mcd in challenge to the impugned award dated 15th october, 1999 is that the terms of reference do not entitle the workman/respondent no. 1 herein to claim the wages of a garden chaudhary. the relevant portion of the terms of reference reads as follows:-'whether sh. abid raza zaidi is entitled to be regularised as garden chaudhary and if so, from which date and what directions are necessary in this respect.'5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the claim for regularization was given up by the counsel for the workman as recorded in para 14 of the impugned award dated 15th october, 1999, any order granting salary for the post of garden chaudhary without regularization could not have been passed. in my view this is too technical and cloistered a view of the terms of reference as it is settled law that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2003 (HC)

Rakesh Kumar JaIn Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-23-2003

Reported in : (2004)89TTJ(Del)203

orderphool singh, j.m.all the aforesaid eight appeals arise out of different orders passed by the learned commissioner (appeals) in this group of cases and as most of the issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. relevant facts giving rise to this group of appeals are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), was conducted in group cases of ajanta service station, delhi road, meerut on 22-2-1999, including two residential premises known as 68/3, kamal nagar, meerut where prem chand jain resides and at 127, mahavir ji nagar, meerut, where subhash chand along with family members resides. during search several incriminating documents, said to have been found and seized. it appears that proceedings under section 158a of the act were initiated in cases of all these assessed's as assessing officer issued separate notices to each of the assessed's calling upon them to file returns as per requirement of law. each of the assessed's filed return and after that assessing officer completed the assessments in cases of all the assessed's, making different additions against which each of the assessed's preferred appeals before commissioner (appeals) who had decided appeals of each of the assessed's by separate orders passed on 22-4-2001, and in some cases the assessed's are in appeal and department is also in appeal in cases of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2003 (HC)

State. Vs. Mohd. Afzal and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-29-2003

1. every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. the journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the designated judge of the special court constituted under section 23 of the prevention of terrorists activities act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as pota). in the murder reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the designated judge of the special court, pota. by the impugned judgment, the learned designated judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked parliament house on 13.12.2001 along with mohd. masood azhar, gazi baba @ abu zehadi @ abu seqlain and tariq ahmed, all pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure arms and ammunitions and attack the indian parliament when in session, intending to take as hostage or kill the prime minister, central ministers, vice-president of india and members of parliament and for that purpose the said accused persons procured hide-outs in delhi, helped in procuring arms and ammunition, a motor vehicle which facilitated the entry of the terrorists into parliament house complex; procured chemicals for manufacture of explosives used by the slain terrorists who attached .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 02 2003 (TRI)

Parveen Kr. Saraogi and Rustam Ali Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jan-02-2003

Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT533TriDel

1. the above-captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-appeal dated 18.9.1998 vide which the commissioner (appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the addl. commissioner who ordered the confiscation of the seized goods and the vehicle and also imposed personal penalty of rs. 75,000 on appellant no. 1 and of rs. 20,000 on appellant no. 2.2. the facts of the case may briefly be stated as under--on 6.12.1995, the dri officials intercepted truck bearing no. bhc-2586 when some bundles from that truck were being transferred to maruti no. dl 3c 1336. those bundles contained silk yarn of chinese origin and also carried printed labels bearing description 'blossoms while steam filature china national silk import and export corporation made in china'. the present two appellants were also present at the spot at that time along with shri vijay kumar lilha and shri pramod kumar, who are not appellants in this appeal. their statements were recorded. they could not produce any document regarding the valid legal import or acquisition of the goods. the goods were seized through panchnama which was attested by the witnesses. the appellant no. 1 in his statement, however, disclosed that the goods belonged to m/s sangam enterprises in which his wife was one of the partners and that these goods were purchased by that firm from m/s prakash overseas ltd., calcutta. he further disclosed that the goods were validly imported by m/s prakash overseas ltd., calcutta, who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2003 (TRI)

Miralka Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Feb-03-2003

Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT357TriDel

1. appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals).2. brief facts of the case are that m/s. india export house made an import of 7 containers of rough blocks of italian marble. the containers arrived at icd, pragati maidan on 1-1-91, but nobody filed bill of entry in spite of notices issued to the importer repeatedly.when no bill of entry was filed, the show cause notice was issued to the importer and the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 27-2-92, confiscated the goods and imposed penalty of rs. 5 lakh on the importer. the importer, m/s. india export house filed appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal, vide order dated 22-8-94, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 28-2-98, confiscated the goods in question under section 111(d) of the customs act. thereafter, the importer m/s. india export house had not filed any appeal.3. m/s. miralka enterprises filed appeal before the commissioner (appeals) challenging the confiscation of the goods and claiming to be the owner of the goods in question. the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable.5. the contention of the appellants is that they are the exporter of the goods. as the importer had not got the goods cleared, they are the owners of the goods in question. the contention of the appellants is also that no notice under section 124 of the customs act had been issued to them as it requires that before confiscation, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2003 (TRI)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kitply Industries Limited

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-06-2003

Reported in : (2004)(165)ELT49TriDel

1. in this appeal, filed by revenue, the issue involved is whether the panels of laminated particle boards and panels of laminated medium density fibre board are classifiable under sub-headings 4406.90 and 4407.90 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985, as ordered by the commissioner under the impugned order or under sub-heading 4408.90 of the tariff as claimed by revenue.2. we heard shri a.s. bedi, learned sdr for revenue, and shri pravin sharma, learned advocate, for the respondents, m/s. kitply industry limited. it has been brought on record that the tribunal, in the case of respondents themselves [cce, noida v. kitply industries limited, 2003 (151) e.l.t. 560 (t)] has held as under :- "a study of the 3 entries shows that tariff entry 44.06 covers particle board and similar board of wood etc, tariff entry 44.08 covers plywood veneered panel and similar laminated wood. a closure study of these three entries shows that it is not only particle board that is covered under tariff entry 44.06 but it covers similar board of wood. thus, the term similar appears under chapter heading 44.06 as well as under chapter heading 44.08. since the particle board is specifically covered under heading 44.06 therefore laminated particle board will come within the scope, of similar board of wood under chapter heading 44.06." "having regard to the facts and the above discussions as also the case law in the case of bombay burmah trading corpn., we hold that the product is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2003 (TRI)

Anju Devi Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Mar-11-2003

Reported in : (2003)(155)ELT579TriDel

1. in these two appeals, filed by smt. anju devi and shree sanatan dev goswami, the common issue involved is whether the appeals filed by them against order-in-original no. 75/a & r/vs/97, dated 3-10-1997 passed by the commissioner of customs are maintainable under section 129a of the customs act.2. briefly stated the facts are that the officers of directorate of revenue intelligence intercepted a tata mobile van no. mp 09d 8093 on 30-8-1991 at shahjahanpur police post; that the search of the said van resulted in the recovery and seizure of 581 slabs of silver weighing 702.780 kgs. and valued at rs. 47,08,626/- from five specially built secret cavities; that rajendra kumar, driver, in his statement dated 31-8-91 deposed that one kanchan aggarwal of mathura appointed him as his driver; that kanchan aggarwal purchased the said mobile van which was registered in the name of one manoj kumar which was later on transferred in the name of dinesh aggarwal of indore; that one dinesh kumar of mathura took the mobile van to one garage and got the cavities made; that before 15th august he brought silver weighing about 700 kg.approx. from beawar alongwith dinesh and delivered the same to kanchan aggarwal; that in the present trip he went to beawar from mathura alongwith one bharat and met one rangwala near railway station as per the direction of kanchan aggarwal; that rangwala took away the vehicle, returned after about six hours and told them that he had concealed smuggled silver in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 2003 (TRI)

Northern India Steel Rolling Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jun-24-2003

Reported in : (2003)(89)ECC134

1. the above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common order-in-original dated 10.9.2002 vide which the commissioner of customs has ordered the confiscation of the imported goods with option to get the same redeemed, determined the value of the goods for assessment purposes and also imposed penalties of various amounts, as detailed therein.2. the appellants no. 1 is a firm of which appellants 2 and 3 are partners, while appellant no. 4 is the authorised representative of the firm. the firm imported fresh iron/steel bars/rods in 12 containers and filed bill of entry 587 dated 6.4.2000 at cfs, ludhiana. but misdeclared the goods as heavy melting scrap (hms) (quantity 254.870 mts; and undervalued the same to avail the benefit of customs duty. the officers of dri acting on specific information visited cfs, ludhiana and examined all those containers in the presence of vivek walia, appellant, authorised representative of the firm and two chartered engineers, shri j.s. oberoi and shri rajesh shori. on examination, all the containers were found to contain fresh bars and rods of iron and steel of the length varying from 4' to 12' and diameter 10 mm to 28 mm.the officers also noticed that one container was already opened and some pieces of bars and rods were found to have been loaded from that container in a truck. all the goods alongwith the truck were seized under section 110 of the customs act. for getting expert opinion, the goods were got examined from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 2003 (TRI)

Azad Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Jul-30-2003

Reported in : (2003)(90)ECC574

1. the above captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the common order-in-original vide which duty and penalty against m/s. azad engineering works and penalties against other appellants under rule 209a as detailed therein, had been confirmed.2. the learned counsel has contended that there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the charge of clandestine manufacture of the goods in question (diesel generating sets, diesel engines) by m/s. azad engineering works, appellant no. 1 and clearances of the same by them to the other appellants without payment of duty. therefore, the impugned order against all the appellants deserves to be set aside. on the other hand, the learned jdr has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.3. i have heard both sides and gone through the record. the bare perusal of the record shows that appellant no. 1, m/s. azad engineering works is engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines and diesel generating sets with isi mark under the brand name of 'power master', 'power man' and 'power shakti'. the charge of clandestine manufacture of the goods against them had been based on the allegations that as per the documents furnished by various branches of punjab agricultural development bank, the engines financed by them on the request of the various farmers were much more than the number of the engines shown as manufactured by the appellants. m/s. azad engineering works in their statutory record and as such there was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //