Delhi Court March 1994 Judgments

Miss Shaily Mahna Vs. M/S. Pyramid Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Complainant is a minor and Shri Rajesh Mehna is her father and natural guardian. She through her father booked a flat in building bearing No. 77/4, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, drawing and dining room for a sum of rupees nine lakhs with respondent No. 1, which is carrying on the business as builder. She at the time of entering into the agreement paid Rs. 50,000/-vide cheque No. 701040 dated 1st October, 1990 drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi. The agreement was entered into by her with the builder through respondent No. 4, who was their booking agent. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the directores of respondent No. 1 and Smt. Gurcharan Kaur respondent No. 5. is the owner of the house, on which respondent No. 1 had to construct the flats. 2. It is pleaded by the complainant that respondent No. 1 after a short time stopped the construction of the ...

India Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT524TriDel

1. The appellants filed Bill of Entry Cash No. 1787 dated 16-1-1987 for the clearance of a consignment of photographic films. After clearance of the goods they filed a claim for refund of duty on the grounds that the goods having been imported on behalf of National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad for Research & Development were exempt from the whole of the duty of customs under Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 21-10-1989 rejected the claim on the grounds that the importers had not produced the relevant documents in support of their claim. The appellants thereafter filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) before whom they reiterated their stand that the goods were exempt in terms of Notification No. 424/86-Cus., dated 28-8-1986 since they had been imported on behalf of National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad who were a public funded institution approved by the Government of India as an organisation engaged in Resea...

Collector of Customs Vs. Keshari Steels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC545Tri(Delhi)

1. These are two appeals. Appeal No. C/738/90-C filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, and Appeal No. C/3370/90-C filed by M/s. Keshari Steels. A. No. C/738/90-C - the respondents M/s. Keshari Steels imported a consignment of "Plates (065/4 TSV/Model) 6314/22 for slide Gate Refractory Type 1 QC - Refractory Material (Bricks)" vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 2634 dated 8-5-1987. The goods were assessed under Heading 6902.90 of CTA, 1975 read with Heading 6901.00 of CET, 1985 at the rate of 60% + 40% CVD 15% denying the benefit of Notification No. 242/76-Cus. Subsequently, the respondents filed their refund claim for Rs. 2,32,812/- on the ground that the imported goods are covered under Notification No. 242/76-Cus. Alternatively, it was also claimed that the subject goods be classified under Heading 98.06 read with Notification No. 124/87-Cus. They also claimed that the 5% discount shown in the invoice should be allowed in computation of value. The Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-...

Delhi Administration Vs. Ashok Solomn

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)218; 1994(29)DRJ310

(1) The impugned Judgment of acquittal was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.11.1992. Application for obtaining certified copy was filed on 5.2.1993. The certified copy was ready on 8.4.1993. According to this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay, the file for the purpose of filing appeal was received in the office of the Standing Counsel on 20.4.1993 and thereafter the file mixed up with some decided file and was traced on 30.7.1993. It has been pleaded in the application that delay in filing the appeal is not intentional, but due to administrative procedure. The limitation for filing appeal expired on 29.4.1993. The appeal was, however, filed on 12.8.1993. It was returned many times for complying with the office objections and ultimately the office objections were complied with and the appeal was presented on 20.9.1993. Though the facts about the file having been misplaced in the office of the Standing Counsel have not been e...

ira Pandit Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994(29)DRJ187

R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner Dr. Ira Pandit and the respondent No.4 Dr.Tista Bagchi are competing as piants to the post of Reader in Linguistics in University of Delhi. The respondent No.4 having been selected, the petitioner approached this court just on the eve of the respondent No.4 being delivered with letter of appointment. (2) On 12.3.1993 the University of Delhi notified an advertisement inviting applications inter alias for the post of Reader in Linguistic. Consistently with the University Calendar the academic and other qualifications needed to apply for the post of Reader were:- 'GOOD academic record with atleast Second Class Masters Degree in the relevant subject with a Doctoral Degree or equivalent published work. Evidence of being actively engaged (i) in Research or (ii) Innovation in Teaching Methods or (iii) Production of Teaching Materials. 5 years experience of teaching of Under-Graduate/Postgraduate classes and/or Post Doctoral Research work with evidence of pub...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Unitac Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT836TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the impugned order dated 16-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.2. When the matter had come up for final hearing none appeared for the respondents but we find that there was a request from them to decide the case on merits based on their cross-objection.3. The point to be considered in this case is whether "Cloth based self-adhesive tapes" for industrial use is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5909.00 as claimed by the party or under sub-heading 5906.90 as contended by the Department.4. It was submitted by the party in their Cross-Objection that this issue has been finally decided by the Tribunal in their own case for a different period as per Order No. E/150/93-D, dated 21-4-1993 [1994 (70) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.)] wherein contention of the party was accepted holding that product in question is classifiable under sub-heading 5909.00. It was submitted that no further appeal has been file...

Shankar Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC354Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants herein who are manufacturers of V.P. sugar and molasses reported to the Department that 5047.045 MTs of molasses stored in a pucca covered tank within the licenced premises was burnt by auto combustion and that all possible efforts were made to avoid the occurrence of the chemical reaction. An application for remission of excise duty on the above-mentioned quantity of molasses was filed on 29-8-1988 on the ground that the damaged molasses were unfit for use and not marketable. The appellants were permitted to dispose of the burnt molasses pending the decision on the issue of remission and the appellants also furnished an undertaking to pay the duty in case the burnt molasses was sold. The Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad rejected the application for remission for the reasons inter alia that the burnt molasses was cleared on payment of duty under protest without either the permission from the competent authority or supervision of the Departmental officers and th...

Deutsche Rano Gmbh Vs. Mohan Murti

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994RLR423

Sat Pal, J.(1) EA. 70/94. This is an application filed by of the D.H. under Order Xx Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code') for exemption from filing the copy of the decree. Let the application be registered. (2) Mr Bhatia, the learned Senior Counsel of the D.H. submitted that the decree sheet had not yet been prepared and he, thereforee, referred to the last para of the judgment dated 15.10.93 in terms of which the suit was decreed in favor of the D.H. and against the J. D. He contended that the last para of the judgment be deemed to be a decree for the purposes of the execution in terms of Order Xx Rule 6A (2)(b) of the Code. (3) Mr. Lekhi the learned counsel of the J.D. however, submitted that the D.H. had failed to satisfy the Court that every endeavor was made to ensure that the decree was drawn up as expeditiously as possible in terms of Order 20 Rule 6A (2) of the Code and as such the D.H. could not be given the benefit of sub-clause (b) of the said Rule. (4) From t...

Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union Territory of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)265; AIR1994Delhi293; 54(1994)DLT190; 1994(29)DRJ162

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The need for replacement of the existing slaughter house facilities in Delhi has been recognised for over a decade and serious consideration was first given to this as early as ;in 1967. ' The question of construction of a modern slaughter house in Delhi has been examined by slaughter house experts from the world over the Fao Mission was of the considered view that the present facilities at the slaughter house are inadequate and unhygienic. The report has given following reasons to support its case. I)The most pressing need for new facilities relates to the totally inadequate and inappropriate location of the present slaughter house. Situation in the heart of the city is unacceptable because; -it is an unsocial activity that should be removed from residential areas; -gross movement of livestock into the centre of Delhi causes considerable traffic congestion. -serious public health risk arises from the large quantity of affluent for which urban sewers in old Delh...

Star Industrial and Textile Enterprises Limited and anr. Vs. Board for ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)25; 54(1994)DLT90; 1994(29)DRJ113

D.K. Jain, J.(1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Public Limited Company and its Chairman and Managing Director seek a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records of the petitioner company from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIER), established under Section 4 of the Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short SICA) and after scrutiny for quashing the alleged oral directions given by the BiEr on 5 August 1993 for issuance of an advertisement for the sale of the petitioner company's undertaking and for enforcing immediate recovery of arrears of interest and other dues of an aggregated stated amount of Rs. 2.5 crores from the petitioner company and for the enforcement of the personal guarantees given by the petitioner company's Directors/Promoters. The petitioners further pray for a writ of mandamus, directing the BiEr to withdraw or rescind...