Delhi Court February 1994 Judgments

Western Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT673TriDel

1. This appeal arises from order-in-original dated 26-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appellant had imported "Wilshire Mechanical Refrigeration Post Mix-Beverage Fountain with Key Lock Facility and claimed benefit of the Cus. Notification No. 59/87 as amended by 151/92 and 154/92. The Department issued two show-cause notices dated 3-2-1993 and 31-3-1993, which was as a result of investigation and seizure of incriminating documents on search of office premises and residential premises of the Managing Director of the appellant company. The scrutiny of the Bill of Entry No. 02090, dated 8-10-1992 and Invoice No. 1111, dated 4-9-1992 and invoice No.63043, dated 1-9-1992 revealed that the importer had imported one container No. IEAU 2605653 from Canada per S.S. Lanka Ashitha, Voy. 48 W. under Bill of Lading No. TOR 03569 BBY dated 4-9-1992. The said container was declared to contain the following : 1. 65 pcs. equipments declared as Wilshire Mechanical Refrigeration P...

Unikol Battlers Ltd. Vs. Dhillon Kool Drinks

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)613; AIR1995Delhi25; 53(1994)DLT501; 1994(28)DRJ482

Arun Kumar, J.(1) Pepsi Foods Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PFL') is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 307-308, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, India. The Company is a joint venture of M/s Pepsico Inc., N.Y. Usa, M/s Voltas Limited and M/s Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited. M/s Pepsi Inc., defendant No.3 is a multi-national company which is well known for its soft drinks under the brand name 'Pepsi'. One of the objects for floating defendant No.2 was to update the processed food technology in India and to export processed food products as an incentive, The Company was allowed to manufacture soft drinks concentrates and market soft drinks under the brand name 'Pepsi'. Pfl has appointed various bottlers in specified territories in India for bottling and marketing the soft drinks. For this purpose Pfl supplies the soft drinks concentrate to its bottlers. Defendant No.3, i.e. Pepsi Inc. holds trade marks for its popular...

Harbir Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)593; 1994(28)DRJ470

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition is for the quashing of the First Information Report bearing No.2598 dated January 2, 1992 relating to offences under sections 405, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station., New Delhi. (2) Before I proceed to deal with the matter I may mention that the investigation is still in progress and that no challan has so far been put in. It may also be mentioned that during arguments the First Information Report was sought to be quashed only on the ground that the dispute was of civil nature. (3) Before I come into grip with the arguments advanced, it would be profitable to reproduce the First Information Report itself as it holds the key to the entire matter. 'FIRST Information Report (2598) (First Information of a cognizable Crime reports under section 154 Cr.P.C.) Police Station - Rajinder Nagar District Central Dated 2-1-1992 at 2.40 P.M. U/S 409/420 I.P.C. 161, New Rajinder Nagar New Delhi. The S.H.O.,P.S. Rajinder ...

Yash Pal Bhatia Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT798

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Delhi Development Authority, to allot a Mig Flat to the petitioner and to charge him for the same in accordance with the relevant rule, as prevailing in August, 1989. (2) The petitioner was registered for allotment of flats in New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. He was so registered for allotment of Mig flat. The name of the petitioner was to be included in the draw of lots but the same was omitted due to an error committed on the part of the respondent-Authority. The petitioner represented against non-inclusion of his name in the draw held in March, 1989. The representation was accepted by the Vice Chairman of the Authority and the name of the petitioner was directed to be included in the draw immediately. The draw of lots was then held on August 31, 1989 and the name of the petitioner was included and he was allotted flat No. 178-D, Block No.F, Nand ...

ishwar Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1994Delhi540

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a writ petition through which the petitioner, a released Emergency Commissioned Officer, inter alia, prays for quashing the order dated November 26. 1968 whereby his services were terminated by the first respondent while he was working as Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (for short 'BSF') and claims seniority on the basis of Rule 6(l)(b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned. Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1967 (for short 1967 Rules') or Rule 6(l)(b) of the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules 1971 (for short 1971 Rules'), in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') to which he was subsequently appointed on January 12, 1971 as Assistant Commandant. (2) A narrative of the relevant facts necessary for resolving the controversy are as under : (3) On June 30, 1963 the petitioner was commissioned in t...

Rakesh Goel Vs. Mehar Singh Sura Charitable Hospital Trust and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 53(1994)DLT461

Sat Pal, J. (1) is 4537/89 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and in this application it was prayed that defendant and its agents be restrained from alienating, selling and transferring the property No. 9-A/75 and 9-A/76, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This application came up for hearing on 4th July, 1989 and a notice of this application was issued to the defendant. On the same date the defendant and its agents were restrained from alienating, selling and transferring the property bearing No. 9-A/75 and 9-A/76, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi till further orders. (2) is 14936/91 was filed on behalf of the defendant Under.Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code and in this application it has been prayed that is 4537/89 be heard early and the same be dismissed and ad interim injunction granted on the aforesaid application...

NavIn Kumar Vs. Navyug Tour and Travels and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This order will dispose of Appeal Nos. A-167/92, A-183/92 and A-184/92 which contain common questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgment are being given from Appeal No. A- 167/92. 2. The complainant booked as eat from Jammu to Delhi with the respondents. It is alleged that at Jammu he was not provided a seat in the bus and that he had to travel up to Delhi in standing position. Thus, he suffered discomfort during journey. He also made a report to the Police Station, however, no action was taken by the Police against the transporter. Consequently, he filed a complaint in the District Forum for recovery of the damages for mental torture and harassment and for refund of the fare. 3. The learned District Forum issued notices to the respondents but no one appeared on their behalf. However, it dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Forum at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The complainant has come up in appeal against the...

Y.R. Taneja Vs. Delhi Bottling Company

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 29th October, 1992 granting him Rs. 500/- as damages. The Complainant did not file the certified copy of the order alongwith appeal. Rule 8 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules provides that each memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum. Consequently, it is not an appeal in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed on this short ground. 2. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties. Appeal dismissed....

Jai NaraIn Verma Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT567TriDel

1. On receipt of information from the Delhi Police of recovery of 24 foreign marked gold biscuits of 10 tolas each during the search of the premises situated at E-l/8, Model Town-II, Delhi on 5-11-1989, the DRI officers went to the said premises and the police showed them the gold biscuits and in the absence of any proof of licit acquisition/possession/import of the same by any person there, the gold was seized in the reasonable belief of it having been smuggled. The passport of the appellant was also taken over by the DRI officers.2. Shri Sriram Verma, who was present at that time, revealed that the house belonged to the appellant herein who resided at D-9/3, Model Town HI, Delhi and the seized gold biscuits also belonged to him. The appellant's residential premises were searched but nothing incriminating or contraband was recovered therefrom. Sh. Sriram Verma stated that he was the distant brother-in-law of the appellant and that he is looking after the construction work of the appe...

Gujarat Steel Tubes Industries Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT756TriDel

K.S. Venkataramani (T), Jyoti Balasundaram (J), S.L. Peeran (J) and S.D. Mohile (T), Members 1. The following issue has been referred to the larger Bench for decision : "Whether tools falling under Chapter 82 of C.T.A., 75 are not to be classified under Chapter 98 as tools are different from parts of machines for the reasons set out in Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs v. Silicon Electricals & Others (supra); or whether tools which are shown to be specially and specifically designed to work with a particular machine have to be classified under Chapter 98 as parts; and if so, whether such articles would be covered by exclusion at Sl. No. (xi) to the proviso to Notification 69/87." 2. When the case was called on 9-11-1983 none appeared for the appellants. They had however furnished a written submission and had requested for the leave of absence from the personal hearing on 9-11-1993.3. In the written submission the appellants have furnished the technical write-...