Delhi Court May 1988 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.
Mangla Builders Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-08-1988
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)474; 75(1998)DLT407; 1998(46)DRJ845
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) In this case award has been filed by the arbitrator himself. Notices were issued to both the parties and Union of India has filed objections against the award.(2) Relevant facts are as under: 2.2Chief Engineer, N.S.G.P., C.P.W.D., New Delhi under his letter No. 15(13)92-A&C; dated 22.10.1992 appointed Shri S.S. Juneja, as sole arbitrator to decide and make award regarding the disputes falling within the purview of clause 27. Accordingly the arbitrator Shri S.S. Juneja gave the award dated 26th October, 1994. 2.3According to the objections filed against the award the work of construction of permanent complex for N.S.G.P. at Manes or - S.H. Construction of 3,00,000 litre capacity Oh 65 near Petrol Pump was awarded to M/s. Mangla Builders vide agreement No. 12/EE/NSGP/D.II/89-90. The estimated cost of work was Rs. 16,77,948.00 while the tendered cost was Rs. 8,90,260.00 . The date of start of work was 26.2.1990 while the stipulated date of completion was 25th November, ...
Dodsal (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT460TriDel
1. The dispute is over the assessment of Tension Stringing equipment imported by M/s. Dodsal P. Ltd, the appellants imported in 75 packages containing the main equipment and accessories. The importers claimed the equipment with accessories were assessable under Heading 84.22 of the Customs Tariff. The consignment consisted of a number of machines and articles such as Puller, Hydraulic Tensioner, Running out blocks and Steel ropes, and the Collector of Customs assessed the goods under different heads by his order No. NS-398/83.G, dated 16-6-1983; he did not accept the claim for assessment of the entire consignment as one machine under 84.22, but assessed the goods as 28 different items under different heads. He reasoned that each machine works independently though it contributes to the working of the system as a whole, the work being tension stringing of electricity cables on transmission towers.2. The learned counsel for the importers M/s. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. said to the bench that the C...
K.B. Mathur and anr. Vs. Bhagwant Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT211; 1988RLR491
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') against order dated February 7, 1986 of Shri D.K. Saini, Additional Rent Controller, by which he has dismissed the eviction petition brought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement for residence as covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) The present eviction petition was brought on May 15, 1980, by Shri K.B.Mathur and his son Shri R.B.Mathur on the averments that two rooms, kitchen, bath & toilet as shown in the plan filed Along with the petition, were let out to SardarBhagwantSinghonMayl3,1975, under an oral agreement at the rental of Rs. 500.00 per month for residential purposes and the two petitioners, being the owners and landlords of this property No. 18-Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, in which the tenancy premises are located on the first floor required the said premises bonafide for residence for t...
Shri Ram Fibres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC2
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants manufacture nylon moulding powder (hereinafter referred to as NMP Chips) falling under Item No. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff out of caprolactum, a chemical derived from raw naphtha. Effective rate of central excise duty on NMP chips as per Notification No. 5/80-C.E., dated 27.2.1980 was 40% ad valorem. However, under Notification No. 7/80-C.E., dated 27.2.1980 a concessional rate of duty of 36% ad valorem was available to NMP chips manufactured out of raw naphtha or any chemical derived therefrom on which duty of excise at the appropriate rate had already been paid. On 14.7.1982, the appellants filed a refund claim claiming refund of differential duty on NMP chips cleared during the period from 3.11.1981 to 29.4.1982 on the ground that the NMP chips were manufactured out of caprolactum, which was a chemical derived from raw naphtha and was to be assessed at concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 7/80-C.E., dated...
Electronics Corporation of India Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT414TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the demand for central excise duty of Rs. 34,31,760.27 and the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- adjudged against them by the Collector. In the impugned order, it has been held by the Collector that the appellants compulsorily recovered warranty charges for their T.V. sets from the customers but did not disclose the recovery in the price-lists filed by them.2A. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.The appellants resist the demand both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. They maintain that their declared sale price already included the cost of free warranty service provided by them for the first three months and for the next nine months they had another optional warranty on payment basis. They also assert that the department was all along aware of their paid warranty scheme and, as such, the charge of suppression held against them is not correct.3. We find from the record that the department received written informatio...
Precise Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT440TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. C3/1901/1983, dated 21.2.84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras whereby he rejected the appeal filed by M/s. Precise Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi against Order No. S25/1222/83, dated 27.6.83 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras.2. The claim of the appellants was based on the following three grounds : (a) the product "Stabilizer OS 25" is correctly classifiable under Heading 34.01/07(3) of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Item 15AA of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In the alternative, the proper classification is under Heading 38,01/19(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. (b) landing charges should be excluded from the computation of assessable value. (c) additional duty of customs should be charged only on c.i.f. value.4. We have heard Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant for the appellants and Shri C.V.Durghayya, Departmental Representative for t...
Prem Chander JaIn Vs. Jagat Parkash Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT279
Sananda Bhandare, J. (1) The respondent Jagat Prakash Gupta is a tenant under the appellant in respect of a portion of second floor flat forming part of house no. XI/4239-A/3 (Plot No. 3-A), Shri Raj Krishan Jain Street, I, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 250.00 besides electricity charges. The appellant herein sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The case of the appellant is that the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent w.e.f 1st August 1973 despite service of notice of demand dated 4th February 1974. The contractual tenancy of the respondent was determined earlier vide notice to quit. The eviction petition was contested by the respondent who asserted that he had been tendering the rent to the appellant regularly but the appellant refused to accept the same. The respondent also denied having received the notice of demand from the appellant. (2) The Additional Rent Con...
C.L. Suri Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT320; 1988RLR406
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The plaintiff C.L. Suri is the owner of House No. A-30, Link Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and is the lessee of the land underneath this house under the defendant Union of India for a period of 99 years w.e.f. 20th May 1953 vide lease deed dated 28th July 1953. The Indian Carpet Centre was inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff in the ground floor portion of this house on rent on 25th August 1969 for a period of one year for purely residential purposes, but this tenant, after some time started misusing the tenanted portion for commercial purposes for which reason the plaintiff filed eviction petition being petition No. 293 of 1975 before the Rent Controller which was dismissed on 31st August 1976 by Shri K.S. Gupta, then Addl. Rent Controller, but during the continuance of the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Rent Control Tribunal, the said tenant vacated the tenanted premises on 22nd December 1976 and as a consequence the appeal was withdrawn as having ...
Hari Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-04-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT134
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the order of detention dated April 1, 1986 of Hari Singh, petitioner-detenu, as passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, respondent No. 2, and for the petitioner being set at liberty forthwith. I need not give the facts leading to the passing of the order of detention of the petitioner as this petition must succeed on the short ground of the non application of mind of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention The challenge to the legality of the detention of the petitioner is also squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimal Kapur, a co-detent of the petitioner and in whose case also an identical order of detention was passed as in the case of the present petitioner. A comparison of the grounds of detention of the petitioner and the application dated March 16, 1986 submitted by Mr. J.S. Arora, Advocate for the Customs Departmen...
Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC128
1. M/s. Amis Oxygen Pvt. Ltd., Baroda have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order-in-original No. 17/MP/85, dated 29-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Industrial Gases namely Oxygen, Acetylene, Nitrogen gas etc. falling under tariff items 14H and 68 of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under the Central Excise licence in form L-4 held by them for such manufacture.The Unit was selling their product, from the factory gate and through their depots situated at Ahmedabad, Rajkot and Udhna as well and they had filed price list in Part-I except for M/s. I.P.C.L., Baroda in which case price list had been filed in Part-II as they had entered into contract with them. Scrutiny of the records/documents revealed that the Unit had issued invoices covering the sales of their products 'as aforementioned and had also issued separate invoices (debit notes) representing the "handling charges" and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »