Delhi Court March 1994 Judgments

Milk Food Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC98Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay who has rejected the claim of the classification in respect of two consignments covered by two separate Bills of Entry dt. 22-11-1988. By these two consignments under the same IGM No., the goods have been described as, in so far as Bill of Entry No. 7518 dt. 22-11-1988 is concerned as "product forming, conveyor system and freezing tunnel". The importer has claimed assessment of product forming under Heading 8438.80 of the Customs Tariff, conveyor system under Heading 8428.39 (read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus.) and freezing tunnel under Heading 8418.69 (read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus.). The goods covered under the Bill of Entry No. 7516 have been described as "enrober machine, conveyor system and coating & hardening tunnel"; claiming assessment of enrober machine under Heading 8438.80 (read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus.) and coating hardening tunnel under Heading 841...

Arrow Electronics International Inc. Vs. Nitul Data System

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)1025; [1997]88CompCas234(Delhi); 54(1994)DLT59

P.K. Bahn, J.(1) This petition is instituted seeking an order of this Court for winding up the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company despite a statutory notice having been served has failed to pay off itsdebts.The facts, in brief, are that in the year 1988 the respondent-company placed an order for supply of various electronic components on the petitioner. the petitioner, which is a company based in New York having its representative based all datedin Bangalore, had dispatched the consignment accompanied by the invoices alldated 12/09/1989, for the total value of Us Dollars 16,992.21. The respondent-company had declined to take delivery of the said goods taking the plea that even before the goods were dispatched the respondent-company had cancelled the order. The petitioner-company then had made arrangement for re-export of the said consignment back to America. It is alleged that later on therespondent-company agreed to have the delivery of the said consignment o...

Shashi Pahuja Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)889; 1994(28)DRJ566

R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition is filed for seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other writ, direction or order for quashing an arbitrary demand raised by Delhi Development Authority from the petitioner in respect of Flat No.22, First floor in Sector Iii, Pocket 23, Rohini under Mig category and for a direction to Dda to charge a reasonable rate of interest on the sale price. (2) The allegations are that the Dda had introduced 'Registration Scheme on new Pattern 1979' of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by the Dda in the year 1979. The petitioner got herself registered under the scheme and deposited Rs.4500.00 on 13.10.1979, which amount was adjustable towards the price of the flat. The Dda issued a Brochure, Annexure-III under the Scheme according to which the price of the Mig flat was tentatively shown at Rs.42,000.00 . 112 flats were accordingly constructed in Pocket-23 and completed in 1987. The petitioner, however, was un-successful in the ...

M.K. Agarwal and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)962; AIR1994Delhi242; 53(1994)DLT751; 1994(28)DRJ664

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioners numbering two, a Chartered Accountant and an Advocate, have Filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs :- (I)Issue .appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of prohibition, prohibiting the Registrar of Trade Marks, Respondent. No.3. from registering any purported trade marks of foreign newspaper which are already registered with the Registrar of Newspapers, Respondent No.2, under Section 6 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867. having same or similar names as that of the applicants Newspapers. (II)To issue appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Trade Marks, Respondent No. 3 to strictly comply, and not to ignore or violate Section 6 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, while registering the purported trade mark of any foreign newspaper. (III)To issue appropriate order or direction in the nature of prohibition o...

Mayur Travels and anr. Vs. Mercury Travels India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)910; 54(1994)DLT247; 1994(28)DRJ633; (1994)107PLR64

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This revision filed by the defendant/petitioners is directed against the order dated 31.5.1985 of the trial court over-ruling plea raised by the petitioner of the suit filed by the plaintiff being barred by resjudicata referable to Section 11 of the CPC. (2) On a short point the revision deserves to be allowed. It is stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners that copies of the pleadings and issues in the earlier suit were not before the court and yet the plea has been adjudicated upon. In Isher Singh Vs . Sarwan Singh and others : AIR1965SC948 it has been held:- 'THE question whether a matter was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit has to be decided (a) on the pleadings in the former suit. (b) the issues struck therein, and (c) the decision in the suit.'(3) In the absence of pleadings of the earlier suit being of record the plea of resjudicata cannot be said to have been justly and rightly adjudicated upon by the trial court. (4)...

Punjab National Bank Vs. G.S. Industries (India) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1994)BC16; 54(1994)DLT107

Sat Pal, J. (1) This is a suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff-bank against the defendants under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs.5,59,314.26 with costs Along with future and pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. It has also been prayed in this suit that a preliminary decree for the aforesaid amount with costs of the suit Along with future and pendente lite interest @ 18% p.a. in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed and on non-payment of the decretal amount in the Court or to the plaintiff-bank within the time fixed, a final decree for sale of mortgaged property bearing No. E-156, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant No. 4 for realisation of the suit amount. (2) On 1/02/1990 the suit came up for hearing and summons were directed to be issued to the defendants for 10/05/1990. Along with the suit an application bearing is No. 798/90 was also filed. Notice of this application was also issued for ...

Ramesh G. Bhatia Vs. Gopala Gases Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)365; 55(1994)DLT77; (1994)108PLR1

P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been filed under Section 433 read with Section 438 of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the respondent-company.(2) This company was incorporated in February 1980 as a private limited company with a nominal capital of Rs.1,60,000.00 divided in to 1,60,000.00 equity shares of Rs.10.00 each. The paid up capital of the company is Rs. 15,14,550.00 and the authorised preferencial shares capital of the company is Rs. 9,00,000.00 divided into 90,000 preferencial shares of RS.10.00 each and the paid up preferencial capital of the company is only Rs. 8,50,000.00. The petitioner is having 7500 equity shares of value of Rs10.00 each in this company.(3) The company was carrying on the business of manufacturing industrialgases. Another company by the name of M/s. Uttam Air Products Private Limited was already functioning and the petitioner and respondent No.2 are Directors of that company. Respondents 2 & 3 are real brothers and are Directors of respondent N...

Laffans (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Citi Bank and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S. Brar, Member: 1. Complaint has been filed under Section 2(1)(c) and Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Complainant is an incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act purchased a Contessa Classic car from M/s. Classic Motor ,Pvt. Ltd for the use of its Chairman-Cum Managing Directors personal cum family use by taking a loan of Rs. 1,49,205/- from opposite party No. 1 The said loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 5,413/- only and for this the complainant excuted a loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 27th January, 1990. Thirty sever blank signed cheques were issued by the complainant towards the payment, of the above mentioned 36 instalments over a period of three years, instalments being payable monthly, Complainant insured the said vehicle with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company and paid the premium for the year 1990-91 by handing over a cheque for the premium amount to the Citi Bank (Opposite party No. 1) for being handed over to oppos...