Delhi Court April 1994 Judgments

Miss S. Srivastava Vs. Classic Motors

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that a decree was passed in favour of the appellant by the District Forum on 25.8.92. Appeal by the Opposite Party against that order was dismissed by the State Commission. The complainant filed an application for recovery of the decretal amount before the Forum, which was paid to her by the judgment-debtor. She thereafter, filed an application for amendment of the order and giving interest on interest before the Forum. That application was dismissed. She has come up in appeal against that order to the Commission. 2. We have heard the appellant and the agent for the respondent. There was no direction in the original order of the Forum that interest on interest would be paid by the complainant. If she was aggrieved against that order she should have filed an appeal against that to the Commission, but she did not do so. Thereafter she was not entitled to claim interest on the amount of interest by an application for amendment of the order....

Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT95TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by the party against the impugned order dated 29-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) Madras.2. The matter relates to valuation. The appellants are the manufacturers of the Vanaspati. Appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Universal Oxygen Company, Kurnool during June, 1971 for the sale of Oxygen Gas which is produced as a bye product in the course of manufacture of Vanaspati. The Oxygen Gas was supplied to M/s. Universal Oxygen Company through pipeline who in turn filled the cylinders and sold to customers. As Oxygen was an excisable commodity attracting T.I.14H and the duty was assessable on ad valorem basis. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to show cause as to why the price at which M/s. Universal Oxygen Company sold oxygen to their customers should not be taken as assessable value for the levy of Central Excise Duty. Show cause notices were duly answered by the appellants contending that sale to M/...

Unique ResIn Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT587TriDel

1. These are four identically worded applications purporting to be under Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with a prayer to amend the Final Order No. 276 to 279/93-C dated 4-8-1993 passed by this Tribunal in the appeals filed by the present appellants (A. Nos. E. 17 to 20/92-C).2. Arguing on the application Shri P.M. Dave, Ld. Counsel for all the applicants submitted that in the instant case the demand raised was time-barred and, therefore, it was taken as a ground in the Memorandum of Appeal as well as in the stay application. At the time of hearing of the stay application this plea of the applicants was duly considered.During the hearing of the appeals on merits the said ground was reiterated but inadvertently it remained undecided in passing the said final order and consequently the propriety of imposing the penalty and its quantum also remained untouched. To substantiate his contention he has also filed his affidavit. In reply Shri Somesh Aro...

Collector of Customs Vs. Kwality Biscuits Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC9Tri(Delhi)

1.1 The respondents herein filed a bill of entry for clearance of the item described as "A.C. Transistor Invertor Units" under Chapter Heading 8504.40 CTA read with Notification No. 59/87. The said Chapter Heading covers "Static Converters" which are used to convert electrical energy in order to adapt it for further use i.e. it converts power from Alternating Current to Direct Current. The original authority, however, held that the item is having an independent function and therefore, it is correctly classifiable under Heading 85.43 CTA which covers Electrical Machinery and Apparatus having individual functions. The Assistant Collector in coming to the aforesaid conclusion held that the item under import is not a mere Convertor but it is an Adjustable Frequency Motor Controller which is used to control the speed of A.C. Induction Motor. 1.2 The lower appellate authority, however, on appeal from the respondents herein accepted the plea of the respondents. He held that the impugned item...

Karamchand Thapar and Bros. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC529Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellant is an importer of "I.D. Card Printing/Production System with Essential Accessories & Spares". The invoice dated 28-11-1991 stated that I.D. Card Printing/Production System comprising of: (a) Capture Station two (b) Printing Stations two (c) Production Control System one (d) Data Base Station one (e) Network Control Station one (f) Communication Controller one (g) With essential accessories/spare parts The Importer sought their classification under Heading 8443.50 of the Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 and 109/91 dated 15-7-1991. He also claimed the clearance of imported goods against licence No. P/B/3460905/C/XX/19/B. 91 dated 15-3-1991. The Heading 84.43 covers printing machinery, machines for uses ancillary to printing and subheading 8443.50 reads as "other Printing Machinery". The Officer scrutinised the Catalogue/Invoice/Packing list and on examination of goods, it was found that no machine had been imported as classifi...

Shanti Devi Gupta and Others Vs. D.D.A. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)369; AIR1994Delhi299; 54(1994)DLT620; ILR1995Delhi391

ORDERD. K. Jain, J.1. By this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari and mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order calling for records of Plot No. 3, B-Block Local Shopping Center-11, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi and directing respondent No. I, the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) and No. 2, the Union of India respectively not to allot public passage in front of petitioners Plot No. 4 and if already allotted quash the allotment; direct the aforesaid respondents and respondent No. 3, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, not to permit respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to carry out any construction or raise any structure on the said public passage and in the basement beneath the public passage.2. The issue involved would appear to be simple though arguments addressed would look rather complex. The dispute concerns a very small strip of land of the size of 8 x 20 leased to respondent No. 4 at a price, for him to con...

Sunshine Travels and Tours P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)231; 55(1994)DLT9; 1994(29)DRJ212; [1995]213ITR749(Delhi)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question involved in these two writ petitions pertains to the scope of Chapter XX-A and Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner in C.W.P. No. 2822 of 1986 is referred to hereinafter as 'Sunshine Travels' and the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1986 is referred to hereinafter as 'P. P. Singh'. 2. Sunshine Travels entered into an agreement on April 30, 1986, with anil Vasudeva and others, Anil Vasudeva and others were the co-owners of the property in question. They were constructing a residential building on the said property. They are referred to as the 'sellers'. The sellers agreed to sell a portion of the building to the purchaser, Sunshine Travels. The consideration shall have to be paid in the manner stated in the agreement out of which a sum of rs. 50,000 had already been paid under four cheques. The stages in which the balance shall have to be paid are narrated in the agreement. The following clause is quite relevant : '...

Delhi Cloth Mill Limited Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)509; 54(1994)DLT521; 1994(29)DRJ350

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) Eight contemners have been proceeded against by order of this Court dated 4 March 1994 under section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), and Article 215 of the Constitution for having committed criminal contempt. As to what 'criminal contempt' means, it will be useful to refer to its definition in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act, which is as under :- '(C).'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which - (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course to any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; 'Section 14 of the Act prescribes the procedure where cont...

Ravinder Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)544; 1994RLR405

D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,the petitinoer seeks admission to M.D. (Community Health Administration)Course of Delhi University for 1993 session. This petition was filed on 26/02/1994. The petitioner said he obtained M.B.B.S. Degree of Delhi University in 1982and completed his internship the following year. He then joined the Director of Health Sevices, Delhi Administration, as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis. He was regularised in this service in October 1992 after he had knocked the door of the Central Administrative Tribunal and certain directions were issued in the petitionthere. On 27/12/1992 he wrote to the Delhi Administration for permission to join Post Graduate Course and for that purpose he appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the Delhi University in March 1993. The petitioner say she was declared successful and was called for Counselling for 17/06/1993.However, he was in the waiting list and was finally selec...

Sukhdev Chand Paul Vs. S.K. Sharief

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995RLR54

K. Shivshanker Bhat, J.(1) An order was made by this court in (C.W. 660/1990) on 2.3.1990 wherein it was recorded that the learned counsel for the respondent submitted thai the representation of the petitioner which was pending seeking renewal of the permit was being looked into and the application shall be disposed of within 2 months. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition on the ground that this undertaking has not been fulfillled. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that this order for compliance was extended by an order of this court dated 16.7.1991. I assume that the order was made by the authority concerned within the time granted by the court.(2) In the counter affidavit it is stated that an order was made on 25.2.1991 (Ann. R-2). The counter affidavit also produces a letter dated 4.2.1991 (Ann. R-l). This letter informed that he had not been found to meet the prescribed conditions of allotment' and thereforee the petitioner was requested to ...