Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1437; 56(1994)DLT547; 1994(30)DRJ657
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the defendants be restrained from taking any action against the plaintiff and its allottee members pursuant to the notices dated 4.7.94 and 14.6.94, with a further direction that the defendants be restrained from implementing the memorandum dated 13.7.94. Mr.R.K.Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as POMA) has argued that the plaintiff is a duly registered association having 213 members. It is the case of the plaintiff that certain platforms were constructed at New Subzi Mandi by Dda to be used as storage and auction platform and possession of these platforms were handed over to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for storage and auction purpose. The plaintiff approached the defendants for use of the said platforms by its members and vide license deed dated 1.4.79 the defendants handed over the platform to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1995Delhi87
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar entered into a contract with Delhi Development Authority (in short 'D.D.A.') for the construction of shopping-cum-residential block at Turkman Gate. The said agreement also contained arbitration clause which provided that in case of any dispute arises between the parties, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Engineer Member of the D.D.A.2. Dispute arose between the parties in respect of the work executed by the petitioner, which was refuted by the D.D.A., hence the claims were preferred to the Engineer Member of the D.D.A., who in turn appointed Shri Banarsi Dass, respondent No. 2 herein as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and counter claims of the parties.3. The arbitrator after going through the record and after hearing the parties made and published his award dated 21st October, 1991, The said award was ordered to be filed in the Court. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT312TriDel
1. The issue for decision in Appeal No. 1255/89-B2 is whether a consignment of dies for manufacture of scooter parts are to be classified under Heading 82.05 of the Customs Tariff or under Heading 84.45/48. The appellant company claimed classification of these goods under Tariff Heading 84.45/48. They were, however, classified by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Heading 82.05. This order was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals); hence this appeal.2. The issue to be decided in the other appeal No. C/1502/89-B2 by the same appellant is identical. The only points of difference are that the appellant company had imported only one die and that because of legislative amendment the earlier Heading 82.05 was replaced by heading 82.07 and the relevant part of Heading 82.45/48 by 84.66. The issues in both the appeals being the same, they are being disposed of by this order.3. Shri A. Hidayatullah, Sr. Advocate appeared for the appellant with S/Shri M.P. Baxi, A.Z. Sheeraji and L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT896TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by the Collector of Customs, Kandla praying for the stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, Kandala dated 18-3-1994.2. Smt. C.G. Lal, ld. S.D.R. appearing for the applicant Collector, submitted that the respondents, herein, were attempting to export plastic newer/straps under Duty Exemption Entitlement Scheme (DEEC) by mis-declaring its description and actual value and that the export products declared as made from HDPE granules were in fact manufactured out of re-cycled plastic scraps/waste. In the proceedings that were initiated against the respondents, the Collector dropped the charges against the respondents in the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by the applicant Collector on a direction from the CBEC under Section 129D of the Customs Act. Ld. S.D.R. argued that the applicant Collector has a good prima facie case. The Collector has erred in holding that the DRI officers at Bombay ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the OPs against the order of the District Forum-I (DF) dated 1-5-92 by which they have been directed to encash the National Saving Certificate (NSC) in accordance, with the terms and conditions as mentioned at the back of the certificates and pay Rs. 1000/- as costs and damages to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of the order. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased six years NSC of the value of Rs 6,000/- from Sub Post Master, Greater Kailash- II Post Office, New Delhi, OP-3, on 30-3-88 OP- 2 is the Post Master General, P and T Department and OP-1 is the Union of India. The NSCs were to mature after six years and became encashable on 30-3-94; At the back of NSC it was provided that they were encashable after three years or more at the rates as given therein. 3. It is pleaded by the complainant that she applied for encashment of the certificates on 4.4.91 to OP-3, but he refused to encash the same on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT812TriDel
1. This is an application for condonation of delay with reference to appeal arising out of order-in-appeal No. 369-C.E./APPL/IND/91, dated 8/9-6-1993 of Collector (Appeals), Indore under which the appellant claims for refund of excise duty for the period 1-1-1977 to 31-3-1989 was rejected as time barred.2. The applicant, M.P. Electricity Board are a body corporate duly constituted under Section 5(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 with its registered office at Rampur Jabalpur (MP) and have territorial jurisdiction throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh.3. The admitted facts are that the order-in-appeal dated 8/9-6-1993 was received by the applicant on 14-6-1993, limitation period expired on 13/14-9-1993 and the applicant's application for condonation of delay was received in the Registry at New Delhi on 18-10-1993.4. Ld. Advocate for the appellant Shri L.P. Asthana drawing our attention to the sequence of events listed in the Misc. application filed subsequently containing addit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(75)ELT128TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the Government of India Order No. B/22/5/86-TRU (Pt), dated 12-6-1986 enhancing the deemed credit to Rs. 500 per tonne in respect of steel sheets of thickness exceeding 5 mm falling under Heading 72.12 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after 1-6-1986 with the manufacturers manufacturing final products specified in the Notification No. 177/86 has to be deemed as having been superseded by Order No. 332/30/87-TRU, dated 2-11-1987 which was issued in supersession of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Order No. B.22/5/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986 under which in respect of "steel and articles thereof falling under Heading 72.12 when purchased from outside or lying in stock on or after 1-3-1986 for use as input deemed credit was presc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994(31)DRJ86
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This petition has been moved under Section 28 'of the Arbitration Act read with Section 41 and Order 39 Rules,l,2 and 3 and/or principles thereof and under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that time for making the award by respondent No.2 may be extended and/or enlarged by further period of four months from the date of the order and letter dated 18th June,1991 issued by respondent No.1 may be quashed. (2) The facts in brief are that in respect of work granted in 1984 to the petitioner by the first respondent petitioner raised certain disputes in 1990 whereupon the Chairman of the first respondent appointed Sh.B.K.Madan, respondent No.2 as an Arbitrator to settle those disputes. I his was vide order dated 9th March,1990. The arbitrator entered upon reference. It appears that the petitioner had also filed an application before the learned Addl.District Judge, Delhi under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference of the disputes to the arbitrator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT645TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order-in-Appeal No. C/3/1930/82, dated 8-1-1985 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.2. The brief facts of the case are that appellants had imported electric motors and claimed their assessment under the then existing Tariff Heading 85.01(1) of CTA on the ground that motors they had imported were internally geared motors and since such motors are excluded under Heading 85.01(2) these would fall under the residuary Item No. 85.01(1) of the then existing CTA.3. The Asstt. Collector held that internally geared can mean only such motors comprising of gears and motors housed in the same casing, not separable and manufactured as one integral unit and, therefore, classified these geared motors under 85.01(2) since the geared motor imported by the appellant are not considered by him as internally geared motors.4. Collector (Appeals) rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that geared internally means gear fitted inside the motor housing and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT966TriDel
1. When this reference application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur was called, Shri M.M. Mathur, learned Joint Chief Departmental Representative raised a preliminary point that since the order in question had been passed by a Bench consisting of Members different from those now sitting in the Bench, the requirement of Rule 31 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, will not be met. He, therefore submitted that the reference application should be heard by the Bench consisting of the same Members who passed the order under reference.2. It was pointed out to the learned JCDR, Shri Mathur by the Bench that under Rule 31 cited by him, the same Bench which heard the appeal giving arise to the application for reference to the High Court shall hear such application unless the Honourable President directs otherwise and the purport of this will become clear when one looks into the subsequent Rule 31A which specifically lays down that 'application for rectification of mistake apparent from ...
Tag this Judgment!