Delhi Court October 1993 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.
Kissan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC259Tri(Delhi)
1. The present application emerges from Order No. E/215/92-D dated 20.5.1992. By the present application, the appellants have made a prayer for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal.2. Shri H.P. Arora, Id. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the Misc.Application. Shri Arora pleaded that the appellants have approached the authorities for implementing the order passed by the Tribunal and thereafter grant of consequential effect to the order passed by the Tribunal. The Ld. Advocate pleaded that now the Central Excise authorities have issued a letter dated 25.5.1993 and it is mentioned in the letter that in terms of provisions of Section 11D of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the hearing was fixed for 16.6.1993. Shri Arora pleaded that the hearing did take and the order had been reserved and till date not communicated so far.3. Shri M.K. Jain, ld. SDR, who has appeared for the respondent, pleaded that after the...
Thandava Co-op. Sugars Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT297TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Thandava Co-operative Sugars Ltd., are manufacturers of sugar. They have cleared V.P. Sugar as free sale sugar during the period from April 1990 to October 1990 under additional entitlement Scheme and paid central excise duty leviable on levy of Sugar only. They have claimed concession in terms of Notification No.130/83-C.E., dated 27-4-1983 as amended and 131/83, dated 27-4-1983 as amended. Show cause notice was issued to deny the benefit on the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions laid down under Clause 3 of 'Explanatory Notes' to both the Notifications 130/83 and 131/83 as amended inasmuch as the letter of intent or industrial licence was not issued to them between 1-10-1980 and 30-9-1985 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for setting up a new Sugar factory or for increasing capacity of a Sugar factory. Show cause notice was duly replied stating that theirs is a new unit, ...
Sah Machine Tools (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT101TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of grinders, polishers and presses falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were clearing their products after affixing the brand name "CINNI" which belonged to M/s. Raj Kumar Sah & Sons, a registered partnership firm who were not engaged in any manufacturing activity. The appellants had acquired exclusive right to use the aforesaid brand name on the goods manufactured by them on payment of royalty to M/s. Raj Kumar Sah & Sons. The appellants filed two classification lists on 15-11-1990 with effect from 12-11-1990 wherein they inter alia claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 in respect of their products. The appellants received a show cause notice dated 21-11-1990 from the Assistant Collector proposing to deny the ...
United Felts and Carpets Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT609TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 8-11-1991, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi.2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellants had applied for and obtained permission for the clearance of semi-finished goods i.e.floor coverings of felt falling under sub-heading 5702.20 and 5702.90 CET from their factory for the purpose of latexing at the factory premises of M/s. A.V. Laminates at Faridabad, under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules. According to department on scrutiny, it was found that the item being cleared by the party was not floor coverings of felt as such but was in fact 'felt' itself. After considering the reply and on hearing the party, it was held by the Collector in the impugned order that the so-called semi-finished floor coverings felt manufactured and cleared by the party for latexing was felt falling under sub-heading 5602.90 and, accordingly, he confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice under ...
M/S. New Horizons Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi126; [1997]89CompCas785(Delhi); 52(1993)DLT560; 1994(28)DRJ228
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.Rule D. B. 1. There are two petitioners. First petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and the second petitioner is the Director of the first petitioner. By this petition they seek to have issued a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the award of contract by respondents 1, 2 and 3 to respondent No. 4 for printing, binding and supply of telephone directory for Hyderabad. Then the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to accept the tender of the first petitioner for the purpose aforementioned. The first respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, NewDelhi; the second is the Chairman, Telecom Commission, Ministry of Communication, New Delhi; the third is the General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Telecom District, Hyderabad; and the fourth respondent is M/s. M. & N. Publications Limit...
Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Spie Capag, S.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Delhi75; 1993(27)DRJ562; ILR1994Delhi131
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. The foremost question in issue in this case is whether or not Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (for short 'FARE Act') is applicable to the arbitration agreement contained in the underlying contract executed by and between Gas Authority of India (for short 'GAIL') on the one hand and SPIE CAPAG, S.A., NKK Corporation and Toyo Engineering Corporation (for short 'Consortium') on the other. The second question which arises is : If Section 3 of the FARE Act is applicable then whether or not proceedings before the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (respondent No. 4), initiated by the Consortium for appointment of three member Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the claims raised by it against GAIL, should be permitted to continue. 2. The facts of the case may be stated as under : GAIL is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hotel Samrat, Chan...
Deutsche Raitco Gmbh Vs. Mohan Murti
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)371; 52(1993)DLT288; 1994(28)DRJ84
Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,51,50,000.00 (equivalent of Us Dollars 1,000,000) plus interest of Rs.58,75,620.00 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under the provision of Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as'the Code'). The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the decretal amount at the rate 18 percent per annum from the date of institution of. the suit till the date of realisation and costs.(2) Briefly stated, the facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the defendant who carries on business under the name and style of Nexim and/or Nexim/Mohan Murti with offices at 47 Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and also at 110/111 Pragati Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, entered into contract with the official Russian importer, Technointorg, Moscow on 27th December, 1985 for the supply of certain parts of household air conditioners manufactured by the plaintiff in West Germany and the total value of the contract was Rs.2,5...
Lahori Mal and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)522; 52(1993)DLT395; 1993(27)DRJ635
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondents can impose a ban on the display of hoardings/advertisements, sign-boards and other advertisements within its jurisdiction and whether any prior permission is necessary before the said advertisements are put up.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners are carrying on the business of advertising and/or are displaying/advertising various products of their customers by placing hoardings/advertisements, sign-boards, neon signs etc. at various sites. Some of the sites belong to public undertakings like the railways while hoardings/advertisements are also put at sites owned by private parties.(3) Under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, bye-laws relating to control and regulation of advertisements were framed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee vide Notification dated 17th September, 1960. According to the respondents bye-law No.6 thereof required prior permis...
B.B. Patel Vs. Nexim Exports (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)365; 52(1993)DLT233
Sat Pal, J. (1) In this case vide order dated 3/05/1993, the defendants were granted leave to defend under Order xxxvii Rule 3(5)subject to the following conditions:'(a) Defendants shall renew the bank guarantee for half of the suit amount and keep the same alive, during the pendency of the suit;(b) The remaining half of the amount shall be deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of one year, which shall be renewed from time to time during the pendency of thesuit. The said amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank and the Fdr be furnished to the Registrar of thisCourt.'(2) It was further stated in the said order dated 3/05/1993 that the conditions mentioned here in above shall be complied with by the defendants within two months from the date of the order. Since the conditions have not been complied by the defendants within the stipulated time, the case was listed before the Court on 28/09/1993. On the said date an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defenda...
Bhagwan Singh Talwar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1993
Reported in: 52(1993)DLT422
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 3/03/1993passed by the Personnel Division of the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi respondent herein approving the transfers certain officers. Petitioners 1 and 2 Bhagwan Singh Talwar and Guru Prasad are working as Deputy Managers with the Corporation. PetitionerNo. 3 is the M.M.T.C. Delhi Regional Officers Association and petitionerNo. 4 is the Federation of M.M.T.C. Officers Association.(2) Pursuant to an agreement between the Corporation and its employees, Staff Promotion Policy namely; The Mmtc (Staff) Promotion Policy 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Policy) was created. The1984 Policy has two staff categories; (i) Local Cadre and (ii) all-India Cadre.The members of the staff under the said Policy were required to exercise their option for one of the two cadres. It was agreed that those who opted for the Local Cadre w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »