Delhi Court August 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.
S.A.B. Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT823TriDel
1. In this application the applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,26,086.90 for the period July, 1989 to January, 1990. The goods involved are Deflection Components for Black & White T.V. and Colour TV. (E.H.T./RB.T.) transformers and line drive transformers and its correct classification is the question before us. The department has classified the goods under Heading 85.04 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 while the applicant is claiming classification under Heading 85.29. The Assistant Collector has applied the ratio of the Collector (Appeals) order passed in the party's own case in order-in-appeal No.63 dated. 3-1-1992 and as a result he confirmed the order-in-original.The first sheet of order-in-original lists out the instructions and specifically mentions of filing appeal against the order before Collector (Appeals). The applicant did not choose to file the appeal in time. After a lapse of 6 months from the date of the order, they have filed the appeal, on the groun...
Aum Air Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT891TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill dated 30-9-1993.2. Learned counsel stated that the appellants were SSI unit and were availing of exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as amended as they were within the prescribed exemption limit. The exemption Notification was amended on 1-11-1987 and provided the benefit to the factories registered with the Director of Industries or Developement Commissioner as the SSI unit under IRDA. It had, however, a proviso to the effect that this requirement was not necessary in those cases where the factory, other than factory registered under IDRA with the DGTD, had been availing of the exemption under this notification or any of the specified notifications mentioned therein, during the preceding financial year.3. In view of this position they continued to avail of the benefit as before.4. They had been filing classification lists claiming the benefit and the sam...
V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)212; AIR1995Delhi1; 55(1994)DLT703; 1994(31)DRJ185
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner V.K. Dewan & Co. questioning the grant of tender forms to the 4th respondent (Ch. Chatter Singh Saini & Co.). The grant of the tender forms to the 4th respondent is objected on the ground that he does not have the necessary experience in particular type of work - viz. construction of water retaining structure, the cost of construction of which is estimated at about Rs. 3 crores. The contesting respondents are the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent became the lowest bidder after he made his offer on the basis of the tender forms given to him earlier, the petitioner is the next lowest, the difference between the offers being 61,703 only out of the total value of about Rs. 3 crores. In fact, the petitioner who at the relevant time was black-listed by the Mcd made his offer on the basis of certain interim orders of this Court in another writ petition which was later allowed by th...
Griha Sathapna Cooperative Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1023; 56(1994)DLT73; 1994(30)DRJ591
D.K. Jain, J. (1) Since we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, with their consent, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions at this stage itself.(2) By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) to refund with interest the amounts which the petitioners had paid to it for allotment of land at Dwarka Phase-I1, New Delhi. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these petitions, it would be necessary and appropriate to give a little background of the matter, relevant to the case.(3) The Delhi Development Authority conceived and undertook the project named as 'Dwarka Project', also known as Papankalan, to develop about 5000 hectares of land for allotment to Co-operative Group Housing Societies to accommodate a population of over one million people. A number of Cooperative Croup Housing Societies, including the petitioners, after registration wit...
Maninder Kaur Vs. Delhi High Court and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)969; 57(1995)DLT288; 1994(30)DRJ436; 1994LabIC2373
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of separate writ petitions filed by five practicing advocates of Delhi seeking appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge (for short 'ADJ') as members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short 'Service'). One of the petitioners, namely, Mr. Malkhan Singh (CW 1656/86) belongs to scheduled castes community. The other four belong to general category.(2) In the petition of Mr. Malkhan Singh and Mr. Sanjay Kaul (CW 3811/91) the three respondents are Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi High Court.(3) In other three petitions (CW 1797, 1702/92 and Cw 3025/91) beside aforesaid respondents, three Additional District and Sessions Judges are also respondents They are Mr. S.N. Aggarwal (Respondent No.7), Mr. P.K. Bhasin (Respondent No.8) and Ms. Reva Khetrapal (Respondent No.9). Earlier to their appointment these officers were also practicing advocates at Delhi. On 30th November, 1991 they were appointed as ADJ's...
Om Prakash JaIn Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1043; 1994(30)DRJ601; 1994RLR473
Sat Pal, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 1991 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby the learned Rent Control Tribunal upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 21.8.1991 in terms of which he allowed the application turn execution of eviction order filed by Shri Hans Raj, respondent (hereinafter referred to as landlord) and issued warrants of possession ignoring civil court's decree dated 10.10.90.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlord let out the suit premises bearing flat No.20B, New Qutub Road, Delhi to the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). In the year 1962 the landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant under Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of sub-letting. It was alleged in this petition that the tenant sublet, assigned or otherwise parted-with t...
Bansal Industries Gases (Bihar) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT675TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna by which he has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 62,874.00 issued to the appellant company and imposed a penalty on it of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. We have heard Shri R.K. Jain, Consultant for the appellant and Shri Sharad Bhansali, SDR for the department. Shri Jain argued that each of the show cause notices was barred by limitation. He cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of ELMO Engineering Works, Madurai v.Collector of Customs, Madras 1984 (17) E.L.T. 431 (Tribunal). Shri Bhansali supports the Additional Collector's order.3. Notification 71/78-C.E., as it stood on 1-3-1978, exempted clearances of an assessee upto a value of Rs. 5 lakhs during the financial year 1978-79. The exemption was not available if the aggregate value of the clearances by the assessee between 1st April, 1977 and 28th February, 1978 had exceeded Rs. 13.75 lakhs. E...
Eastman Kodak Company Vs. M/S. M.R. Electronics and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi136
ORDER1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, 'Eastman Kodak Company', against the defendants for permanent injunction and for rendition of account. The plaintiff has prayed for obtaining a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants from using the trade mark 'KODAK' or any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto. The plaintiff has also prayed for a decree against the defendants to render the account of profits earned from the use of the trade mark KODAK upon or in relation to its goods and business. The plaintiff has valued the suit forthe purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction for a decree of permanent injunction at Rs. 200/-each and on which the court-fee of Rs. 20/-cach has been paid. For prayers (iii) and (v) for rendition of accounts and payment to the plaintiff for the purposes of jurisdiction are together valued at Rs. 5,05,000/- and it is stated that the plaintiff estimates that a sum in excess of that amount will be found due from the defendants. However, for...
Ved Prakash Vs. Samir Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1273; 1994(30)DRJ728
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) I have heard the arguments in this application which seeks interim injunction against the defendants till the disposal of the suit. (2) The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is trading under the name and style of 'Corporate Management and Computer Systems' (for short 'CMOS') since July 1984 and this mark Cmcs has become very well known in the field of computer training as computer training being imparted by the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff has built up a reputation under the said trade mark and has given wide publicity to this mark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has achieved a lot of success in his business and if anyone else is allowed to use this trade mark it would result in S.No-1560/93 in confusion and would amount to deception. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 & 2 are ex-employees of the plaintiff and since May 1992 they have started using the same trade mark as of the plaintiff with a view to take advantage of the re...
Union of India Vs. Khehri and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(30)DRJ633
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Award dated 21.7.1970 passed by Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge, Delhi determining the compensation with respect to respondents' land situated in Mohammadpur Munirka.(2) The respondents' property situated in the aforementioned village was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi through Notification dated 24.10.1961 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector, Land Acquisition, determined the amount of compensation at Rs.3,000.00 per bigha. On reference the amount was enhanced to Rs.5,500.00 per bigha. The appellant has now come up in appeal against this Award. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the appellant.(3) Counsel for the respondents-objectors has drawn our attention to a judgment in Mrs. Saraswati K.P.S. Menon v. Union of India (decided on 9.3.1977) which was followed in Rfa 70/71 titled as Khushia and another v...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »