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.
H.T. Primlani Vs. Shanta Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-16-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1542; 55(1994)DLT570; 1994(30)DRJ675; 1994RLR492
Sat Pal, J.(1) This petition has been filed by Shri H.T. Primlani, (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the order dated 23rd February, 1994 passed by Shri M.K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller accepted the eviction petition filed by Smt. Shanta Malhotra (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act and passed the eviction order against the tenant.(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises comprising of two bed rooms with attached bath rooms one drawing-cum-dining room, one kitchen, open varandah, open terrace on the ground floor of the house bearing No.C-50, defense Colony, New Delhi which was let out to the tenant by the husband of the landlady on 1st March, 19...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rayon Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT170TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.The respondents were charged with that they had manufactured and cleared EPDM rubber tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber falling under erstwhile TI 16A(3) of Central Excise Tariff for captive consumption without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 12,96,255.14 P.for the period March 1985 to February 1986 without observing Central Excise formalities. After considering the reply and on hearing the party, the Collector dropped the demand on the ground that EPDM unhardened vulcanised rubber tubing is a process material used in a continuous set of operation in the manufacture of synthetic hose pipe and the same was not 'goods' and hence not excisable.2. Smt. JMS Sundaram, learned DR while arguing for the Revenue, submitted that erstwhile TI 16A(3) refers to piping and tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber and since the item in question was found .tubing of unharde...
Colo Plast Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)LC565Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara by his order No. 25 / MP/93 dt.5-10-1993. A show-cause notice dt. 4/5-11-1992 was issued to the appellants asking them to show-cause as to why penalty under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of CER, 1944 should not be imposed and goods weighing 8054.4 kgs. of LDPE Master Batches should not be confiscated besides demanding a duty of Rs. 324/- in respect of goods removed under GP. 1 No. 70 dt. 13-5-1992 under Section 11A of the Act should not be recovered from them. The allegation is that on the date of the visit of the Officers on 14-5-1992 the assessee had written their R.G.1.Register only upto 7-5-1992 and the same showed a nil balance of excisable goods while the gate pass book showed that they had made clearances vide GP. 1 No. 66 dt. 9-5-1992,67, dt. 9-5-1992,68 dt.11-5-1992, 69 dt. 13-5-1992 and 70 dt. 13-5-1992. It is alleged that no duty payment had been debited in respect of goods cleared...
Sh. VipIn Gupta Vs. M/S. Chitra Advertising Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi65; 58(1995)DLT384
ORDER1. By this summary suit under O. 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) Vipin Gupta has sought recovery of Rs. 10,35,000/- against M/s. Chitra Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Abbas Hakim. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff deals in the business of advertising and marketing of various products. He brings business to Doordarshan for which he is paid commission. Defendant No. 2 Abbas Hakim is a producer of T.V. Serialls. He has already produced T.V. Seriall such as 'Kisse Miyan Biwi Ke'. The said defendant had a concept of T.V. Serialls known as 'Sunahre Warq'. He had submitted the proposal of 13 episodes and pilot episode to Doordarshan for approval. The said approval was granted on 2nd August, 1989. The Seriall was scheduled to be telecasted on the national network from 9th June, 1990 at 9.00 p.m. Plaintiff procures sponsored programmes for his potential clients in the form of episode for telecasting over national network of Doordarshan. Vide agreement dated 10th Fe...
J.K. Leatherite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT467TriDel
1. This case has had a chequered history, right from December, 1990 when the pre-deposit of duty levy of Rs. 1,08,61,529.34 P. and penalty of Rs. 40 lakhs imposed upon the appellants by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh was waived and recovery stayed by Order Nos. S/402 to 406/90-NRB, dated 19-12-1990, on the prima facie ground that the order which appears to have been passed on 2-7-1990 was without jurisdiction as the adjudicating authority had relinquished charge of the Chandigarh Collectorate on 17-4-1990 i.e. prior to the date of passing of the order. At that stage, the learned DR was not in a position to show to the Bench, the original order passed by Sh. Gowri Shankar, who was the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh upto 17-4-1990 and he could only show a rough draft initialled by the officer and a cyclostyled copy marked as 'office copy' signed by, some official 'for Collector'. The main appeals were fixed for hearing on the next date i.e. 19-12-1991 on which date...
Morarjee Brothers (imports and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT853TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the demand of duty and rejection of the refund claim as a consequence of the classification of the product "MORAKFLOC" under Heading ISA of Central Excise Tariff, against the claim of the appellants for its classification under Tariff Item 68, the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. FACTUAL BACKDROP : The appellants - a Private Limited Co. inter alia are the manufacturer of a product known as Morarfloc. A Show Cause Notice-cum-Demand dated 17-7-1985 calling upon them to show cause as to why their subject product manufactured by them be not classified under Tariff Item 15A(1) w.e.f. 1-3-1982 (instead of Tariff Heading 68) on the ground that in the Budget, 1982 Tariff Item ISA has been substantially modified by Explanation III as it has been provided to include liquid or pasty (including emulsions, dispersions and solutions) forms and, therefore, why the refund claim pertaining to the period from 1-3-1982 onwards be not rejected and why the duty on t...
Smt. V. Prabha Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1201; AIR1995Delhi128; 1994(31)DRJ385; (1995)110PLR72
ORDER1. By this application the objector, legal heir of late Raja Pratap Bhan Prakash Singh, wants this Court to recall its order dated 13th October, 1987 passed in I. A. No. 4270. 87. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. seeking restraint order against the petitioner from dealing with properties mentioned in the schedule annexed to the probate petition. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of an Administrator. The application was allowed vide order dated 13th October. 1987. Tim order was passed in the absence of the applicant. The eldest son of the deceased Raja Pratap Rhan PrakashSingh arrived at Delhi on 10th October, 1987 in order to pursue this petit ion. His lawyer fell sick, however, keeping in view the interest of the applicant, his lawyer even during illness came to the Court on 13th October, 1987 but due to rush of work and on account of his illness he could not appear i...
Karan Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)73; 55(1994)DLT511; 1994(30)DRJ634
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) In this batch of 46 appeals, claim is for enhancement in the amount of compensation with respect to acquisition of appellants' property situated in village Gharauli, which was acquired for the Planned Development of Delhi pursuant to Notification dated 17.11.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) which was followed by Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 2.9.1981.(2) Collector, Land Acquisition, on 2.7.1983 through his Award No.18 of 1983-84 while assessing the amount of compensation payable to the claimants fixed the market value of the entire land at Rs.9,000.00 per bigha except for a patch of land which was found to be such of which earth had been removed up to 3 feet in depth, for which market value was fixed at Rs.7,000.00 per bigha and for another patch of land from which more than 3 feet in depth earth had been removed, the market value was fixed at Rs.4,000.00 per bigha. Under the preliminary notifi...
D. Khosla and Co. Vs. Y.N. Rao and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1429; 1994(2)ARBLR315(Delhi); 1994(30)DRJ485
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The Chief Engineer, Delhi Zone, Delhi Cant on behalf of Union of India, the defendant-respondent in the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940 has filed these two applications-IA No.7243/93 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 'and is No.7244/93 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking condensation of delay in moving the court and setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 29.3.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court making an award dated 23 12.89 the rule of the court. Insofar as the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Cpc is concerned, it has been prayed in the alternative that this court be pleased also to treat the application as one seeking review of the judgment and decree inasmuch as they suffers from an error apparant on the face of the record. The relevant facts are all stated in the application. The learned counsel have been heard on this alternate prayer.(2) The Arbitrator published the award on 23.12.89 and gave notice...
C.C.E. Vs. Bhayana Electronics Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT905TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.268-CE/DLH/92, dated 14-5-1992 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi allowing the respondents the refund under Rule 57H.2. The respondents received an order from an Indian firm M/s. Chinar Exports Ltd. for manufacture, supply and export of sound recorders and reproducers. They imported the components for their final product and took the Modvat credit towards additional duty paid on such components.These goods were finally exported after the manufacture from their factory on the strength of AR-4 application. The fact that the goods had been exported from the factory for export has not been disputed.2.1 Since the credit taken by the respondents towards Modvat could not be utilised towards similar products as exported, the respondents in terms of provision of Rule 57F(3) filed a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 2,23,281.59 towards BED and Rs. 10,663.46 towards SED for export of goods effect from January 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »