Delhi Court December 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.
T.T.K. Pharma Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC188Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the rejection of their appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Madras in order-in-appeal No. 136/87 dated 20-8-1987.2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is the correct classification of product 'Bronidiol'. The appellants had claimed the classification under chapter sub-heading 3801.20 of CET 1986 in their classification list No. 1/86 dated 6-3-1986 claiming the said product as 'fungicide'. They relied on the product literature and letters issued by the users of that product. They contended that the product is a nontoxic fungicide used for the prevention and destruction of the growth of 'fungi bacteria' and 'yeast' and hence claimed the classification 'fungicide'.3. The Department examined their claim and found that the product is classifiable only as a preservative and not as fungicide on the following ground stated by the department in the show cause notice dated 27-10-1986 - "Bronidiol is marketed only as 'B...
Bajrang Alloys Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT624TriDel
1. Since the issue involved in these appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. In all these cases the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Structurals and other rolled products namely, angles, bars, rods and other rolled products in their Rolling plants. They also purchase rough unmachined rolls from the market which are machined and grooved in their factories for being captively used as replacements of worn-out rolls in Rolling Mill. After the visit of Central Excise Officers to their factory the appellants were served with show cause notices alleging that they had manufactured M.S. rolls falling under sub-heading 8455.00 by undertaking the process of grooving, surface finishing and machining of plain/casted/forged rolls falling under Chapter 73. The show cause notices also alleged that the appellants had captively consumed the said M.S. Rolls without maintaining any records or filing classification lists and price lists and without dischargin...
S. Sony and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)118; 1994(1)ARBLR190(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT267; 1994(28)DRJ109
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) These are objections on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA' under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to the award of Shri R.K.Sundram, Sole arbitrator dated 16th March 1990. The award is in respect of the claims that arose out of the contract for plumbing and sanitary work in the players block of Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium Complex which was to be used for the Asian Games.(2) Notice of the filing of the award was served on Dda on 17.9.90 and the present objections by Dda were filed on 17th October 1990. Thus the objections appear to be within time. The claims appear to be based on alleged loss of profit suffered by the petitioner on account of foreclosure of the contract.(3) I have heard the parties in respect of each of the claims. In the objections Filed, there is no objection filed to any other claim.As suchexceptforClaimsNo.1,2,10and 11 the award is acceptable to the respondents. At the bar also, the respondent's cou...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Desu) Vs. H.D. Shourie
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-1993
Reported in: 53(1993)DLT1; 1994(28)DRJ218; 1994RLR105
Sat Pal, J. (1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2004 of 1983. Before the learned Single Judge the following contentions were urged on behalf of the petitioner :- 1)No demand can be raised for period which is more than three years after the consumption of the electricity. 2) Since the provisions of section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') have not been complied with, the demand raised by Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (for short called 'DESU')vide bill dated 1st November, 1980 was liable to be quashed. 3) Assuming there can be a demand which is raised in case of a defective meter, then the basis of calculating the correct consumption of electricity during the period should be not with reference to the subsequent period but should be with reference to the period earlier than the period in question.(2) Dealing with th...
Pesticides India Vs. State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT42; 1994(28)DRJ104
Sat Pal, J.(1) On receipt of the award dated 22nd May, 1985 in the matter of Arbitration between M/s. Pesticides India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) and State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals India Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corpora- tion), notices of filing of the award were issued to the parties on 30th May, 1985. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application bearing is No.4120/85 containing objections to the award. The objections were controverter in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. On 19th January, 1988, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the award is liable to be set-aside for the objections? (2) Whether the award is not liable to be made rule of the Court? (3) Relief.(2) On the same date the objector was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence within eight weeks and non-objectors were directed to file their counter-affidavit within four weeks thereafter. Pursuant to this order the affidavit on behalf of the objector ...
Dhanpal @ Dhannu Sukhbir Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)125; 53(1994)DLT146; 1994(28)DRJ617
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) These two criminal appeal Nos.IS and 25 of 1988 have been filed by Dhanpal alias Dhannu and Sukhbir Singh respectively (hereinafter described as Dp and SS) against their conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of four years and also afineofRs.2,000.00 each under section 201/34 Indian Penal Code or in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) The charge against them was that in the night between 5.1.86 and 6.1.86 to 8.1.86. they in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Bimla wife of Sukhbir Singh, appellant and her daughter Seema at village Chilla within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kalyan Puri and caused disappearance of their dead bodies by throwing them in the river Yamuna with the intention to screen this from l...
Dhanpal @ Dhannu Vs. Sukhbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1994Delhi279
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) These two criminal appeal Nos. 18 and 25 of 1988 have been filed by Dhanpal alias Dhannu and Sukhbir Singh respectively (hereinafter described as Dp and SS) against their conviction under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 Ipc and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentence of four years and also a fine of 2,0001- each under Section 201/134 Indian Penal Code or in default of payment of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months each by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) Refinery and petroChemicals Limited and Others Construction Co.) on .1-2-1989 only stated that it had 'constructed over 300 cubic metre of brick masonry for the packing plant and D.G. Building totalling to 327.29 cubic metre during the month of June 1985'. These certificates, it is submitted, do not come up to the requirements of Para 1. We think that this criticism, based on the differences in wording as between the lan...
Rupendra Kashyap Vs. Jiwan Publishing House (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1; 1994(1)ARBLR156(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT166; 1994(28)DRJ286
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive licensee from the Central Board of Secondary Education for the purposes of publication of papers of 10th and 12th class. (2) It is claimed by the plaintiff that there is a license in his favor, given by the Central Board of Secondary Education to publish the said papers. (3) By this suit, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendants No. 1 and 2 from publishing the very same papers, asserting that they do not have a similar license that the plaintiff has, and being a licensee, he is entitled to restrain the said defendants form publishing the said papers. (4) The question papers for examination are nothing but a collection of questions which are required to be answered by each examinee. They are akin to 'table'. questions having been tabulated. As each question is stringing together of words of the language in which the questions appear, creating 'expression', which formulates concepts that next exposition, which need to...
Manjit Ahluwalla Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)21; 53(1994)DLT571; 1994(28)DRJ114
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated24 April 1989(communicatedtothe petitioner by letter dated 17 May 1989)of the Oil India Limited, the second respondent dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner also seeks to quash the order dated 25 January 1990 dismissing his appeal by the appellate authority. Then the petitioner seeks consequential reliefs.(2) There are four respondents. The first respondent as the title shows, is the Union of India in the Ministry of Petroleum; the second respondent is the Oil India Limited, a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act, through its Chairman; the third and fourth respondents, respectively, are the Executive Director and Chairman & Managing Director (for short 'C.M.D. ' ) of the Oil India Limited.(3) The petitioner was working as Assistant Financial Controller, a Grade Vi post, in Rajasthan Project of the second respondent. By memorandum dated 13 Octob...
Collector of Customs Vs. Widia (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC452Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The respondents herein imported variable Speed drive VLT 7.5. It converts the fixed frequency and voltage of the main supply into an infinitely controllable frequency and voltage. The goods were originally assessed under T.H. 84.63(1) as a machine for controlling of varying the speed of rotation of a machine and it was equated to variable speed gear or a system of gears specifically mentioned under Heading 84.63(1) CTA, 1975. Accordingly, it was assessed thereunder.Refund claim filed by the respondents for reclassification of the goods under Tariff Heading 85.01(1) CTA, 1975 was rejected by the original authority on the aforesaid grounds.1.2 In appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras the respondents herein succeeded and the assessment was ordered to be made under Tariff Heading 85.01(1) CTA, 1975, as contended by the appellants therein. Following is the finding of the Collector(Appeals):- "It is seen from the catalogue that the impugned goods (i.e. variable speed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »