Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments

Babhnan Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT346TriDel

1. The appellants herein reported to the department that 27,874.55 quintals of molasses stored in a pucca covered masonary tank within the licensed premises of their factory was burnt by auto-combustion and all possible efforts have been made to avoid reoccurrence of the chemical reaction.2. The application for remission of duty was filed on 22-7-1991 on the ground that the damaged molasses were unfit for use and not marketable.By communication dated 3-4-1992, the appellants were informed that the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad had rejected their request for remission of duty and the above appeal has been filed against this decision.3. We have heard Shri Vivek Kohli, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned DR for the department and carefully considered their submissions. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellants took steps to get the stocks of molasses allotted to have lifted by the distilleries and pursued the matter with the Ex...

Ajay JaIn @ Ajay Longya Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT730TriDel

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 69 days with the presentation of the appeal. Shri S.K. Upadhayaya, learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted that the delay was occasioned due to illiteracy of the appellant and prayed for condonation of delay.2. Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR. (sic) We are afraid that we cannot accede to the plea of the learned Counsel to condone the inordinately long delay of 69 days on a ground of mere illiteracy on the part of the appellant. The reasons given are neither proper nor sufficient justifying condonation. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and consequently the appeal stands dismissed....

Network Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 58(1995)DLT144; 1997(91)ELT303(Del)

D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 4 July, 1994 of the three members Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short 'CEGAT') directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of rupees one crore towards central excise duty within eight weeks of the receipt of the order and at the same time staying the balance duty amount and the penalty-till the disposal of the appeal. This order was passed on an application by the petitioner under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short 'the Act') pending appeal filed against the order dated 28 October, 1993 of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. 2. The petitioner, a public limited company, is engaged in the manufacture of electronic typewriters which item during relevant period (1982-85) was classifiable under Item 33D of the First Schedule to the Act. The Collector by his order confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,16,85,3...

Express Engineering and Construction Company Vs. Delhi Development Aut ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1995Delhi66

P.K. Bahri. J. (1) M/S. Express Engineering and Construction Company had filed the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act seeking directions to respondent No. 2, sole arbitrator, for filing the award and for making the award a rule of the Court(2) Meanwhile, the arbitrator, on his own. has filed the award dated 27th February 1991 and proceedings in this Court registered as S. No. 2613191. Notice of the filing of the award was given to both the parties and Delhi Development Authority has filed the objections to the award. The objections are opposed by the petitioner and following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the grounds raised in the objection petition 2. Relief.(3) It was directed that arbitration proceedings shall be read in evidence and the matter shall be decided by affidavits. The parties have filed the affidavits. I have heard the argument in detail and proceed to decide the case. Issue NO. 1(4) Facts, in brief, are that Delhi D...

East India Hotels Vs. Ob Int. Hotel Employees

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)ILLJ1177Del; 1995RLR149

Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application, the Plaintiff wants to add a prayer clause seeking relief of permanent injunction against deft. 2 to 6 from in any manner entering into the hotel premises. (2) The facts are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against defts. alleging therein that defts. 2 to 6 being office bearers of deft. No. 1 came into the restaurant and surrounded Mr. Javed Baig, Asstt. Manager while he was on duty in the 'Baan Thai Restaurant' on 30th June, 1994. They abused him using filthy language. Because of this offensive and abusive attitude of the defts. though no provocation was given by the Asstt. manager, the deft. No. 2 caught hold of Mr. Baig and pulled his tie and dragged him while abusing. The defts. 3 to 6 followed suit. Deft. No. 2 also pushed Mr. Baig while other defts. kicked him. Defts. 2 to 6 physically lifted Mr. Baig and carried him from the said Restaurant and dumped him in the kitchen shouting slogans and using filthy and unparliament...

United Decoratives (P.) Ltd. Vs. Prem Traders

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT439

R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark and passing of the defendant's goods as plaintiff's goods. The defendants-firm having been served with the summons have chosen not to file any written statements. The case has preceded ex-parte against them. Ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff has also been recorded. At the stage of final arguments, the counsel for the defendants appeared and sought for time from the court for moving an application for setting aside ex-parte order and filing written statement. That prayer has been refused. 2. Counsel have been heard. 3. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff proves all the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff has been using trade mark FIX for its Zip Fasteners and its parts and components manufactured and marked by it since 1986. The plaintiff is also registered proprietor of the trade mark FIXO under No. 475942B dated 28-7-1987 in respec...

Suresh Kumar and Co. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT571

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) These are the proceedings under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making award a rule of the Court.(2) The Arbitrator has given his award on 11.10.93. The Award having beenfiled, the parties were noticed. The petitioner's Counsel had entered appearanceon20.1.94. The respondent has been served on 2.5.94. On behalf of the respondent none has entered appearance. The time prescribed for filing objections to the award has expired. None of the parties has filed any objection.(3) The award is made a rule of the Court. Let a decree be drawn-up in terms of the award. The decretal amount shall bear interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation....

Anant Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Ram Niwas

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)185; 1994(31)DRJ205; 1995RLR20

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) 'PROCEDURE is but the machinery of law after all- the channel and means whereby law is administered and justice reached. It strangely departs from its proper office where in place of facilitating, it is permitted to obstruct and even to extinguish the legal rights and is made to govern where it ought to subserve''-said Lord Penzance. And here is a practice, not even procedure, having no sanction in law (at least none brought to my notice), which has provably outlived its utility and which by experience has been found obstructing the smooth flow of justice, far from facilitating it. It must be done away with; and sooner the better. (2) This is a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale filed in the year 1982. Twelve years have passed. The suit is yet to witness commencement of its trial; thanks to the loose practice of filing replications /rejoinders which has assumed a vide currency without having any foundation in the rules of procedure or in CPC. (3) T...

Hem Raj Bhatia and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 56(1994)DLT450; 1994(31)DRJ461; 1995RLR104

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of an order dated 25th January, 1971 issued by the Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of defense. (2) Briefly stated facts are that within the cantonment area of Jhansi, U.P., the petitioners own and possess jointly a Bungalow No.17, S.R. Road i.e. Survey No.236. The Bungalow is said to be held under an 'Old Grant' - a term peculiar to the cantonments in India. It means a tenure governed by order No.179 of 1836 of the Governor General. The petitioners have purchased the Bungalow for a consideration of Rs.22,000.00 from their predecessor, one Rajender Pal Talwar, on 6.4.1976. Rajender Pal Talwar had in his turn acquired the Bungalow from Lala Manoo Lal Seth. Since the year 1971 the Bungalow has continued in the ownership and possession of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest. (3) In Jaunary, 1971, the petitioners were served with the impugned notice bearing No.46/1...

Divisional Manager, Lic of India and Others Vs. Angoori Devi and Anoth ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the LIC against the order of the District Forum dated 18.3.93 by which the claim of the complainant has been allowed and the LIC has been directed to pay the amount of the policy with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 10.8.89 and Rs. 500/- as costs of the litigation, within 60 days from the date of the order. 2. Briefly, the facts are that Ramesh Chand, deceased, was working as a driver with M/s Technological Consultants OP-4, OP-1 is the Divisional Manger, OP-2 is the Chairman and OP-3 is the Branch Manager of the LIC. It is pleaded that OP-4 took a policy of the deceased on 12.2.88, for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide policy No. S-l 10658041. The last premium was paid by OP-4 on 12.6.89. The premium for the month of July was due on 20.7.89 but before the payment of that premium the deceased died on 10.8.89. The complainant, it is alleged, is the heir of the deceased and she became entitled to the amount of policy after his death. 3. Th...