Delhi Court September 1994 Judgments
Manjit Singh and anr. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)382; 56(1994)DLT398; 1994(31)DRJ299
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This is an appeal preferred by the two appellants against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.1.94 in I.A 2157/91 in Suit No. 1440 of 1983 granting a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit filed by the respondent (the Punjab & Sind Bank) under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Under the impugned judgment dated 24.1.994 the learned Single Judge passed a final decree for sale under Order 34 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the immovable property known as M- 47, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. (3) This appeal preferred (otherwise than u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure) under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court act is, in our opinion, incompetent for the appellants ought to have filed a regular first appeal (RFA) against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge paying the requisite court fee. Section 10 applies to appeals against orders which amount to 'judgments' and the provisions of Section 10 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Arora Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1502; 1995CriLJ582; 1994(3)Crimes507; 1994(30)DRJ665
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4th March, 1994 passed by Mr. Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. By the said order, the petitioner has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. This order was served on the detenu on 8th March, 1994 while he was in judicial custody in Central Jail Tihar, New Delhi.(2) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:- 'THE officers of the Headquarter, Customs (Preventive Branch) Delhi, Customs Collectorate, on receiving specific information intercepted the petitioner and Surender Pal on 23rd January, 1994 when they were about to leave the parking lot of domestic airport. New Delhi in a red coloured Maruti Car DL-5C-3509. The said car along with the petitioner and Sur...
Tag this Judgment!Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC793Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal relates to the determination of assessable value of paper manufactured by the appellants herein. The appeal arises in pursuance of a judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court dated 8-2-1994 in S.L.P. No. 10111 of 1993 which was filed by the appellants herein against the adjudication order on the price list submitted by them, by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur dated 30-5-1988. The facts briefly are that the appellants manufactured paper under Tariff Item 17 of the old Central Excise Tariff. In a price list submitted by them No. 1/81 and supplementary price list No. 6/82, they claimed deduction from the assessable value on certain elements of cost on the ground that these were post manufacturing expenses. The Assistant Collector returned the price list for giving full detail on the basis of price worked out as the Assistant Collector found that the prices declared were on the lower side than those declared previously.The appellants, thereupon, t...
Tag this Judgment!Natraj Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT344TriDel
1. These are the appeals filed with reference to the same order-in-appeal dt. 30-6-1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants have sent letters dt. 16-08-1994 and dt. 17-08-1994 reiterating their submissions made in the appeal memos and requesting the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits on the basis of these written submissions.3. The appellants have submitted therein that they had filed refund claims but the same had been rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) had also rejected their claims on the ground that the appellants had no option to opt out of Modvat scheme and claim exemption during a particular financial year.4. It was their submission that in the Tribunal's order in the case of CCE v. Mysore Acetate and Chemicals Co. Ltd. as reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 687, it has already been held that the refund claim(s) could be allowed even if any benefit of exemption notification had not been claimed in the classification...
Tag this Judgment!Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT310TriDel
1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether Modvat Credit availed of by the manufacturer is includible in the assessable value of the final product.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of emulsifiers and surface active agents, some of which were captively consumed for the manufacture of finished product. Since the products consumed were not being sold, the appellants filed a price list on the basis of cost of raw material + manufacturing expenses + manufacturing profit. According to the Department the excise duty paid on the raw material should be included in the assessable value and accordingly a show cause notice was issued. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the matter and held that the appellants should have included the excise duty paid on the raw materials for which Modvat Credit was availed by them in their assessable value and demanded differential duty. This view was upheld by the Collector (Appeals).3. We have heard Shri L.B. Attar, learned Advocate ...
Tag this Judgment!Great World Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT39TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 28-1-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras.2. The appellants were charged with misdeclaration of the goods and under invoicing of the goods. The appellants imported Rectifier Diodes from Hongkong. They have filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 27,96,762 pcs of Rectifier Diodes and the value of the entire consignment was declared as HK$ 33,561.14 on the basis of the invoice raised by M/s. Honey Technology Ltd, Hongkong at the rate of HK$ 0.012 per piece. On specific information received by SIB that the value and quantity of the Diodes in the subject consignments were misdeclared, the Bill of Entry has been recovered and on being examination of the goods it was found that the quantity of Diodes imported was ascertained to be 65,50,925 pcs as against 27,96,762 pcs and the value declared was also less compared to the prevailing market rate. After considering the detailed submissions, the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Manak Chand JaIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IIIAD(Delhi)1552; 1995CriLJ3146; 1994(3)Crimes442; 58(1995)DLT421
Arun Kumar, J.1. This is a petition for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner who is facing trial for offences under Sections 21, 61, 85 of the N.D.P.S. Act since the year 1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought bail on the following grounds :- 1. Inordinate delay in trial. 2. Sickness of the petitioner 3. Non-application of Section 50, NDPS Act. 2. So far as the first point is concerned, the trial has been going on science 1987 and in spite of directions from this Court on four occasions in separate cases the trial has not concluded. According to the petitioner the delay in trial is being caused mainly by the prosecution due to non-production of its witnesses. However, counsel for the respondent does not accept this. All the same it is obvious that there has been inordinate delay in trial in this case. Admittedly the prosecution has yet to conclude its evidence. In the nature of the case it is mostly the police people who are to be examined, still they are taking it ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Antani Vs. R.N. Chopra and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)478; 55(1994)DLT688; 1994(30)DRJ735; 1994RLR499
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) This revision is directed against an order dated 20th 0ctober,1993 of the learned Addl.Rent Controller (ARC) by which he granted an eviction order in favor of the landlord-respondent-1 Sh.R.N.Chopra. According to the landlord, respondent No.2 M/s Concord International Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called 'M/s Concord') 5, Golf Links, New Delhi was the tenant while the petitioner Sh. R.K. Antani is stated to be a person who was first occupying the premises as an employee of tenant. Later on landlord came to know that the petitioner ceased to be an employee of the tenant about which fact he was not informed either by the tenant or the petitioner. His further claim in the eviction petition was that he required the premises bona fide for occupation as residence for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him. He also stated that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He was in occupation of first floor of the suit property bearing No.B-110, S...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Aaron Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT241TriDel
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 7-2-1986.2. The learned D.R. stated that the appellants are manufacturers of a product called "Aprot". It is manufactured in 200 ml containers and 50 ml containers.3. The respondents filed their classification lists under TI 68 claiming exemption under Notification No. 104/82. While holding it as classifiable under TI 68 the Assistant Collector denied the benefit of Notification Nos. 104/82 and 234/82.4. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents' appeal treating the item as a prepared and preserved food under Tariff Item IB eligible for exemption under Notification No. 17/70.5. Learned D.R. stated that Learned Collector (Appeals) has erred in doing so. The Tariff Item No. 1B of GET deals with P & P food put up in unit containers. The term 'food' is not defined under TI1IB. However, Government of India, in its order in revision No. 702/80 in the case of Asian Chemicals Works, reported in 1...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. P.L. Singhla and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT519
Devinder Gupta, J.1. Award dated 13.5.1991 (Annexure H) passed by Shri P. L. Singhla, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. II Delhi (respondent No. 1) in I.D. No. 28 of 1979/353 of 1984 is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the Municipal corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management'). 2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication of the Tribunal between the Management and its workmen (respondent No. 2) : 'Whether the L.D.Cs. posted as Steno Typists (Stenographers Grade III) during the year 1976-77 and 1978 against vacant posts are eligible for regularisation as Steno typists (Stenographers Gr. III) in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560? If so, from which date and what further directions are necessary in this regard?' The Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favor of the workmen holding that they had worked as Steno typists for the last about 15 years and, thereforee, they are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »