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.
Norma Industries Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR252(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT162
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is a petition filed on behalf of M/s. Nonna Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (DESU) (for short called 'DESU') under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and in this petition the petitioner has prayed for referring the following disputes to arbitration in terms of arbitration Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. (A)Whether the respondents are justified in levying shunt capacitor charges/low power factor charges on the petitioner in the impugned bill for the month of April 1992 or in future bills? (B) Whether the respondents can levy demand charges on 1580 Kva for the month of April 1992 instead of 1524 KVA? (C) Whether the respondents can levy demand charges on a load higher than the sanctioned load(2) Besides the above disputes, in para 10 of the petition it has also been stated that the Desu has arbitrarily raised the minimum demand from 1524 Kva to 1580 Kva, and has calculated the minimum ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Herbal Isolates (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT929TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The short issue involved in this appeal is whether Black Pepper Powder is covered by the entry 'Black Pepper' in the Export Tariff and is liable to the levy of export cess of Rs. 5/- per kg. The learned Adjudicating Authority has decided that the term 'Black Pepper' also covered Black Pepper Powder or Ground Black Pepper.However, the Appellate Authority had accepted the appellants' contention that these were two different commodities.2. The Department has filed an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal.3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Joseph Vellapally cited certificates from various authorities such as of Agmark, India Spices Exporters Forum, Spices Board in support of his contention that the Black Pepper and Black Pepper Powder were two different commodities. 1 4. During the hearing he also cited the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association and Anr.v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. - reported at JT 1993 (5...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. thermax (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT247TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by Revenue, with three Cross Objections by the assessee - M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd. Chinchwad, Pune, and one appeal by the assessee. As all these relate to common matters, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Under separate show cause notices dated 26-12-1983, 25-2-1984 and 30-7-1984, it was alleged that during the period from 1-2-1983 to 30-6-1984, M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd., Chinchwad, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the assessee, Thermax or the manufacturer, as the case may be), had not included the designing and engineering charges, and the erection and commissioning charges, in the assessable value, even when such charges were recovered by them from their customers on separate invoices. The assessee were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The provisions of the said notification were applicable only when the goods were cleared from the place of removal on sale, and it was provid...
Federation of Dsidc Entrepreneures Associtaion and ors. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)284; 1994(28)DRJ358
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the appointment of Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, by the Ministry of Industry, Union of India. (2) The petitioners are associations whose members had been allotted sheds by the DSIDC. According to the respondents requisite payments having not been made proceedings were initiated under the Pp Act for eviction of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that under Section 3 of the Pp Act it is only the Ministry of Urban Development, which can appoint Estate Office but in the present case the appointment by the notifications dated 5th January, 1993 and 13th 0ctober, 1977 had been done by the Ministry of Industry with regard to the sheds which are owned/acquired or hired by Dsidc Ltd. (3) In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Article 77(3) of the Constitution Allocation of Business Rules had been framed. Accor...
Pratap Singh and ors. Vs. Shish Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ957; 1994RLR72
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the award dated April 30, 19^0, of Shri S N. Kapoor, acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claim of the appellant was allowed to the extent of Rs. 20,000.00 with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application till realisation against only Shish Pal, who was the driver of the vehicle had allegedly caused the accident which resulted in fatal injury to Chander Bhan, aged about 19 years at that time. (2) The claim petition was brought against driver of the vehicle Shish Pal, the owner of the vehicle Mohinder Singh and the New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal, however, gave the finding that the claimants had not been able to prove that Mohinder Singh was ^ the owner of the vehicle in question and the said vehicle was having any insurance policy issued by the New India Assurance Company and thus, the claim was not awarded against the said Mohinder Singh and the New India Assurance Company. The Tribunal has als...
Jagdish Chander Mehta Vs. Bimla Mehta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: 1993IVAD(Delhi)1025; 53(1994)DLT37
Sat Pal, J. (1) This application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and it was, inter alia, prayed in this application that a temporary injunction may be issued restraining defendant No.7,Prakash Chander Mehta from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and his son in a two room residential unit on the ground floor of property No. 52/48, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and from inducting any new tenant in any portion of the said property till the pendency of the suit and further the said defendant be directed to maintain the status quo. (2) The application came up for hearing on 2nd September, 1992 and notice was issued to the defendants for 22nd January, 1993. Plaintiff was granted an ex-parte injunction and it was directed that 'status quo as of today with regard to possession of plaintiff shall be maintained till the next date'. A reply to this applicati...
Moonlight Electronic Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1993
Reported in: 1994RLR71
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) A preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 27.5.1992. It is : 'Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for want of notice u/S. 53(B) of the Delhi Dev. Act or whether the suit could be entertained or the suit is maintainable without such a notice on the facts and circumstances of this case Opp'(2) It is not disputed by the deft. Dda that a civil W.P. was filed between the parties. In that W.P. and in the instant suit, the question is what is the unearned increase to which the deft. is entitled to upon sale of 90% of the land covered by plot No. W-38, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-11. (3) The purpose of S. 53(B) of the Delhi Dev. Act is to give notice to the deft. of the facts on which the plaintiff wishes to rely for purposes of seeking relief from this Court. (4) I have seen the order which has been passed by D.B. of B.N. Kirpal and Sunanda Bhandare, JJ. in C.W.P. No. 2716/88, D./25.01.91 which is Annexure-A to the plaint. (5) It is not disputed that in...
Naveen Glass Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT102TriDel
1. On 10-5-1985, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi along with Officers of the Central Excise Department searched the factory premises of the appellants herein who are licenced manufacturers of glass and glassware, checked the stock and accounts and detected the following irregularities: (a) Shortage of 23963 dozens of finished glass and glassware as compared to recorded balance of RG 1. (b) Excess of 6833 dozens of finished glass and glassware as compared to the recorded RG 1 balance. (c) Non-accountal of 613.04 dozens of finished glass and glassware manufactured and cleared on the date of search under 9 chits without accountal in RG 1 Register and without payment of duty.The authorised signatory of the appellant, one Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal tendered a statement confirming the excess and shortage, stating that it was due to the absence of the Partner from the factory due to bereavement in the Partner's family. Duty on shortage was paid in December 1985. Reg...
Uniaire (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT795TriDel
1. As the issue in both the appeals is common, they are taken together for disposal as per law.2. The Collector (Appeals) has disposed of two orders in original passed by Asstt. Collector dt. 17-1-1991 and 12-3-1991.3. The Asstt. Collector has disallowed the benefit of Notification No.75/87 dt. 1-3-1987 as amended on the ground that the appellants were availing modvat facility from their very first clearance. Accordingly, the Asstt. Collector held that the appellants have to pay full rate of duty of the effective rate and hence confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,17,286/-. The contention of the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) had been that the Assistant Collector cannot compel the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 75/87, dated 1-3-1987, as they had volunteered to forego the modvat credit but did not want to forgo the benefit of Notification No. 75/87 dt. 1-3-1987. The 3d.Collector (Appeals) did not appreciate the stand of the appellant. The 3d. Collector (Appeals)...
Prem Nath Wadhawan Vs. Inder Rai Wadhawan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)105PLR70
Sat Pal, J. 1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree for declaration in his favor and against the defendant to the effect that he is the absolute and sole owner of property bearing No. B-5/204, Safdarjung Residential Scheme, New Delhi.2. The facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. It is further stated in the plaint that a plot of land bearing No. B-5/204, Safdarjung Residential Scheme, New Delhi measuring 213 square meters was purchased in public auction from the Delhi Development Authority (for short called 'DDA') on 27th June, 1971 and a residential house was constructed thereon. It is then averred that from the very inception, that is, since November 1975, the plaintiff along with the members of his family had been exclusively living in this house. It is then alleged that the plaintiff had been openly giving out and declaring himself to be the sole and exclusive owner of the said property and he n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »