Delhi Court May 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT197TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 31-5-1991.2. The learned counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Animal feed supplements.3. They had filed a classification list and claimed classification under Heading No. 23.02 CET. They had also filed a letter of 6-6-1986 indicating the composition of PENTAFORTE AND FAMITONE, the products in question.4. The Assistant Collector, however, asked them to show cause as to why these should not be classified under heading 3003.10 on the grounds that their products appear to have theraupeutic or prophylactic uses.5. It was their submission that these are animal feed supplements and in this connection they would draw attention to explanation II to Notification 234/82-C.E. and the language of the Heading 23.02 of Chapter 23.6. They would also refer to Rule 3 of the rules for the interpretation of the schedule and submit that the Heading provides...
Hindustan National Glass and Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT867TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment described in the Bill of Entry as refractory components for glass furnace FONDAL SCW.Appellants claimed classification under sub-heading 6902.20 CTA as refractory bricks, but the Department assessed the goods under sub-heading 7016.90 which covers paving blocks, slabs, bricks etc. of glass of a kind used for construction purposes. The appellants after clearing the goods filed a refund claim for re-assessment under Heading 6902.20 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Refunds Section, Custom House, Calcutta by his order dated 19-1-1990. The Asstt. Collector found that the chemical analysis indicated composition as 98.9% silica oxide, and the literature indicating the goods as fused silica bricks and hence the original assessment was found in order. The appeal against Asstt. Collector's order was also rejected by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta by the impugned order dated 25-7-1990 who held that ...
Savitri Devi Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Del)1; ILR1995Delhi737; [1995]211ITR10(Delhi)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Rule D. B. 2. The petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Delhi. She challenges an order of the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) the petitioner obtained a land on lease from the President of India on the condition that she should build a residential tenement on it. After the construction of the building, the petitioner was granted a perpetual lease on December 19, 1969, in respect of the land. Subsequently, the petitioner let out the premises after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller to East-West Medical Centre for residential purposes for two years. The tenant used the premises for running a nursing home; a suit was also filed by the tenant contending that the lease in favor of the tenant was for non-residential purposes; the suit was adjourned pending a decision by the Rent Controller as to whether the lease in question was for residential or non-residential purposes. There were a...
Shri Ganesh Enterprises P. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: 55(1994)DLT354; [1994]210ITR786(Delhi)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners basically question the restraint order dated April 2, 1991, issued under section 132(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as modified by the order dated April 25, 1991. The other reliefs are consequential to this basic relief sought by the petitioners. By the impugned order dated April 25, 1991, the third respondent clarified that the earlier order dated April 2, 1991, was confined to an amount lying with the fifth respondent-company as on the said date of April 2, 1991, and there was no bar against the party (the petitioner-company) from carrying out further business transactions with the fifth respondent-company. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of non-ferrous metals, alloys, etc., and the company owns a factory in Okhla Industrial Area. The second petitioner is a director of the said company. The petitioner-company has been subjected to assessment under t...
D.R. Puri Vs. Kamlesh Sawhney and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: 54(1994)DLT493; (1994)108PLR77
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of defendants under Section 151 read with Order Xvi, Rule I -A of the Code of Civil Procedure and in this application it has been prayed that the applicants be permitted to examine one Shri Tilak Raj Kassal as their witness, but whose name inadvertently was not included in the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendants. Notice of this application was given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff in his reply has opposed this application.Thereafter a rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the applicants.(2) Mr. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants drew my attention to paras 2 and 3 of the written statement on merits and submitted that in these paragraphs it has clearly been averred that the defendants came into contact with each other through Shri Tilak Raj Kassal, the property dealer. He, thereforee,contended that the said witness was very much relevant for the adjudication of the dispute between the p...
Jote Ram Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)539; 54(1994)DLT648
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The incident is of 26/05/1974, and the judgment under appeal of 22/09/1975. The wait for this final culmination must have been an ordeal in itself.(2) The prosecution story is set in village Bawana. The day, as already noticedabove, was May 26 in the year 1974. The time about 4 p.m. The main characters are Kumari Shantey, her brother Brahm Parkash, sister Kamlesh and mother Bhagwanibe sides of course the appellant Jote Ram who is projected before us as the villain.It so happened that on the fateful day noted above, while Shantey, Kamlesh and Brahm Parkash were returning home with their buffalo, Jote Ram abused them. The children narrated the incident to their mother who lost no time in lodging protest with him. One would have expected the things to cool down. Instead the tempersr an high and we are told that Jote Ram, a neighbour otherwise, went on to the rooftop of his house and started hurling bricks at the family. One such brick hit Shantey leaving her unconscio...
Bhupinder Singh Chaudhri Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)713; 54(1994)DLT410; 1994(29)DRJ391
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Concept of 'consultation' and essentials of ' effective consultation' in the context of sanction for prosecution under section 19(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 given by the Lt. Governor of Delhi for the prosecution of a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service purportedly in consultation with the High Court of Delhi arise for consideration and form subject matter of decision in the present case. We quote the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the recent decision in U.P.Judicial Officers Association's case (Writ Petition Crl.404 of 1993 decided on 7.3.94) as a prologue to this judgment. Judicial independence in relation to the judicial service has to be ensured and protected. Member of the judicial services should not work under apprehensions of retaliatory actions by the police and the executive 'whatever form such action might assume'. (2) The petitioner join...
Parents Forum for Meaningful Education and ors. Vs. Central Board of S ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)115; 1994(30)DRJ142
Dalveer Bhandaki, J. (1) Parents Forum for Meaningful Education, a registered society has preferred this petition under Section 226 of the Constitution, praying thata writ of mandamus or any other Jppropriate, order or direction be issued to the respondents to take immediate steps to frame rules, regulations requiring evaluation and certification of the difficulty level and the time liable to be spent in answering the question papers set by respondent no. 1by an average student under examination condition, so as to ensure that in future the examinees are not confronted with question papers which have not been tested on the said touchstone by the respondents. (2) The petitioner has also prayed that a writ, order or direction be issued to the respondent to compensate class Xii students who sat for the Mathematics examinations in the year 1994, because the question paper of mathematics examination for the year 1994 was not only very lengthy but it also included some wrong questions and al...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Arosan Enterprises Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)14; 1994(29)DRJ561
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Arosan Enterprise, Ltd. praying that the order of stay dated 6th of October 1993 bevacated,and that the non-applicant Appellant Food Corporation of India (FCI) be directed to pay to it the decretal amount on furnishing a bank guarantee for restitution.(2) Arosan is a foreign company. It entered into a contract with respondent No.2 Union of India and itsCM.1081/94 in Fao (OS) 196/93 assignee Fci for supply of sugar. It furnished a bank guarantee of the State Bank of India (Canada) in the sum of Us $29,28,000.00 for fulfillment of the contract. Fci cancelled the contract, invoked the bank guarantee, and appropriated the sum of Us $29,28,000.00 . This led to disputes between the parties, which were referred to arbitration.(3) The arbitrators made an award dated 18th of August 1992 in favor of Arosan, holding that Fci was in breach, and that cancellation of the contract and encashment of the bank guarantee wa...
Aurochem (India) Private Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)837; 1994(29)DRJ492
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This common judgment shall govern the disposal of the two writ petitions namely Cwp No-4307/93 filed by M/s Aurochem(lndia) Private Limited and Cwp No. 5084/93 filed by M/s Nestor Pharma (P) Limited, impleading (1) Union of India (ii) The Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, through its Director General and (iii) M/s Parsman Pharmaceuticals Limited as (2) The respondents are common in the two writ petitions. Both the petitions raise common questions of law for decision in the background of identical sets of interconnected facts. The two petitions have been heard anologously. The parties too are represented by the same sets of learned counsel. (3) Cwp NO. 3707/93 was filed by M/s Aurochem (India) Private Limited on 9th September,1993. Cwp NO. 5084/93 was filed by M/s Nestor Pharma (P) Limited on 4th November, 1993. The dates of filing of the two petitions have some relevancy as the narration of events would show. (4) At the very outset it may also be mentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »