Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 14 of about 144 results (0.023 seconds)Parekh Dyechem Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT609TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the appellants involving a common issue. Hence they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The point to be considered in these cases is whether the Department was justified in enhancing the invoice value on the ground that the declared price was not the normal price in the course of international trade.3. The appellants M/s. Parekh Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. imported a consignment of 20 M.T. Polyvinyl Alcohol Polysizer-173 at unit price of US $ 1,575 PMT CIF, Bombay. The suppliers of the goods were M/s. Nagase & Co. Ltd. Japan and the goods were supplied as per invoice No.C-11375, dated 24-9-1982. Similarly the appellants M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd. imported a consignment of Polyvinyl Alcohol Polysizer -173 from the same suppliers at unit price of US $ 1550 PMT CIF Bombay as per invoice No. C-11477, dated 8-10-1982. The Assistant Collector has rejected the invoice value and determined the value observing price o...
Tag this Judgment!Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT601TriDel
1. M/s. Raunaq International Ltd., Thermal Power Station, Banharpalli, Distt. Sambalpur, Orissa have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. A stay application duly supported with an affidavit has also been presented. Shri M.G.S. Murthy, the learned advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and pleaded that the issue involved in the matter is as to the classification of structures and the appellants are contractor and pleaded that the present appeal pertains to the classification whereas subsequent Show Cause Notices were issued by virtue of which demand has been created and the appeal is likely to be filed before the Collector (Appeals). He pleaded that no demand has been created in this case but there is a recurring effect and there will be multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid the same, alternatively, he pleaded for grant of out of turn hearing as there is a recurring effect. He further stated that it is a...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Through Prem Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT370
ORDER1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the detention of the petitioner in pursuance of an order dated 2nd February 1994 No. F. No. 673/10/94-Cus. VIII, passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt, of Revenue, New Delhi, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. The facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention order against the petitioner are : the petitioner was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 12-12-1993 with foreign currency $ 127500 which was worth Rs. 39.33 lacs at the relevant time. The said currency was concealed in a false cavity in the petitioner's brief case. He was asked to open his brief case. He opened it through a digital code number. Only a few personal clothes and magazines were found. But the officers had suspicion ...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Vs. 'K.' Line and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT477; (1995)110PLR26
Usha Mehra, J.(1) By this composite application under Order 38 Rule 5and Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C., the plaintiff seeks attachment before the judgment of the containers of the defendants or to furnish security and further the defendants be restrained from alienating the goods stored in or lying in the containers or removing the containers from outside the jurisdiction of this Court.(2) This application has been contested by the defendants. Mr.R.K.Saini,appearing for the defendants contended that in order to attract the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 38, the plaintiff was to plead and prima facie establish the ingredients of Rule 5 namely that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him (i) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property; or (ii) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case,from the perusal of the application it can...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaswata and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Manik and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)284; 57(1995)DLT181; 1995(32)DRJ29; (1995)110PLR8
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This is an application under Order XIvii Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated September 13,1994 passed by this Court. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shyam Moorjani has contended that the order dated August 17,1994 passed by the court below was without jurisdiction and as such the order dismissing the revision petition without issuing notice to show cause is liable to be set aside and reviewed. (3) Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Chopra, on the other hand, has contended that the present petition is for review of the order passed by this Court dated September 13,1994. Hence the said order can be reviewed only in those discerning few cases which fall within the domain of Order XIvii Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (4) Since we are concerned with the construction of the said provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said provision can be adverted to with profit. It is in the following words:- '(1)Any person co...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Gupta Vs. P.K. Khullar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ67
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This is an application for stay of an order of punishment for civil contempt passed by the single Judge against the appellant.(2) By the said order dated 18th July 1994, the appellant was found guilty of having committed contempt of Court, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5000.00 , and in default of the deposit of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days.(3) The impugned order further directed that in case the appellant handed over vacant possession within 10 days from the date of the impugned order, the penalty imposed under the said order will not operate.(4) The main contention for admission of appeal was that under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Contempt of Court Act, in the case of civil contempt, the appellant could have been detained in civil prison, but no punishment of imprisonment could be imposed on him.(5) The facts leading to the impugned order in brief are that ...
Tag this Judgment!Alok P. JaIn Vs. Sunita Narinder Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)8; 57(1995)DLT113; 1995(32)DRJ1
Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This revision petition's directed against the judgment and order dated November 19,1994 whereby the learned lower court dismissed three applications moved by Shri Alok Jain, petitioner herein, under Order I Rule 10 and unde rorder Ix Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated May - 3,1994, and under Order Xxi Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated October 28,1994. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has vehemently contended that the instant case is a case of fraud practiced on the petitioner as well as on the Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is in occupation of the premise tearing No. A-13, West End, New Delhi, as a tenant under the respondent vide lease agreement dated April 1-,1970. A petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by Mrs.Sunita Narinder Ahuja, respondent No. 1 herein, against Jaipur Udyog Ltd. wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as- respo...
Tag this Judgment!Phoolan Devi Vs. Shekhar Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT154; 1995(32)DRJ142
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an application by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint order against the defendants from exhibiting publicly or privtely, selling, entering into film festivals, promoting, advertising, producing in any format or medium, wholly or prtially, the film 'Bandit Queen' in India or else where. Another prayer is made for appointment of a Receiver/Court Commissioner to take custody and charge of the original negatives, intermediate negatives, positives in all gauges, magnetic audio tapes, mixed audio tapes, sales and publicity material relating to the film 'Bandit Queen'. (2) The case of the plaintiff on this application is that on 9.9.94 this Court directed the original version of the film as made and produced on a video cassette be filed within a week. In compliance of the same the cassette was filed by the defendants. Another order was made that day directing the defendants not to exhibit the film for public...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdeep Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)41; 1994(31)DRJ579
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) This appeal has been directed against judgment and order of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, dated August 23, 1989, by which he convicted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code having murdered one Murlidhar with a Kirpan and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act Appellant has filed the appeal challenging his convictions and sentences. (2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that Murlidhar deceased was a three wheeler scooter driver and was resident of Block No.5, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi. On June 10, 1983, he had a quarrel with one Ishwar in front of the house of Ishwar. They were exchanging abuses and the time was about 10.15 P.M. The appellant-Gurdeep Singh, who is also known as Bhola Along with Ram Saroop reached the place ...
Tag this Judgment!Gold Star Co. Ltd. Vs. Gold Star Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)369; 57(1995)DLT658; 1995(33)DRJ188
Usha Mehra, J. (1) By this application M/s Gold Star Co. Ltd., plaintiff had sought an ex parte interlocutory order, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Gold Star' in respect of electric washing machines, electric pumps included in class-7 and electric mixing machines, elevator and escalator vide Trade Mark No.333391 of 10th February,1978. Similarly, vide Trade Mark No.333392 of 10th February, 1978 in Class-9, plaintiff's trade mark is registered in respect of Television, radio, transistor, tape recorder etc. Vide Trade Mark No.333393 in Class-11 as of 10th February,1978 in respect of electric fans, refrigerators, air conditioner etc. Vide Trade Mark No.3333963 as of 10th February,1978 in respect of television, radio, transistors, tape recorder etc. included in Class-9, plaintiff also applied for registration of trade mark 'Gold Star' vide Trade Mark Registry No.33339 dated 10th February,1978 in Class-14 in respect of electrical c...
Tag this Judgment!