Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 158 results (0.023 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC313Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals which have been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay arised out of a common order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The facts of the case briefly are that M/s. Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. and M/s. Yamaha Motor Company Ltd. entered into a joint venture agreement to establish a new company in the name of Birla Yamaha Ltd. There was also an agreement with the Yamaha Motor Company of Japan by which the Japanese had 26% of equity holding. The Japanese Company by the agreement granted licence to the exclusive use of technical information and industrial property rights for the purpose of manufacture and assembly of generators and multipurpose engines and parts thereof and the certain trademarks, design and other industrial property rights relating to generator and multi-purpose engines. The agreement also allowed to use the trade marks on locally manufactured products in consideration of the grant of the technical information the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Export Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT321TriDel
1. M/s. M.A. Exports of Delhi have filed this appeal against the order of Addl. Collector of The Addl. Collector in his order had held : - "8. I order the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 be determined as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). CIF Additional Duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 shall be leviable in respect of the sizes that tally, as per the Notification No. 41/89-CET and in respect of the other sizes as per CET Tariff under heading 4011.99. I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only). I also impose penalty of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only). The fine should be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The penalty should be paid forthwith." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. M.A. Exports filed Bill of Entry describing...
Tag this Judgment!Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT181TriDel
1. M/s. Cinecita Pvt. Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Shri R.Parthasarthy, Id. Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He pleaded that the appellants had imported Projection lenses and had sought clearance under Heading 9002.90 read with the Heading 9002.92.Shri Parthasarthy pleaded that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Nom. No. 93/86-Cus. and he does not press for the benefit of Notn. No. 79/90-C.E. for the purpose of CVD. He pleaded that the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vishal Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 1988 (44) 420 was in favour of the Revenue whereas the later decision of Bombay Divisional Bench in the case of Vishal Electronics v. UOI, reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 557 is in favour of the appellants. He pleaded that the effective rate of duty chargeable at the rate applicable to main machine should be adopted for lenses also in ...
Tag this Judgment!State and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1995Delhi421
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. The appellant/accused Ashok Kumar was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under S. 302, IPC and was sentenced to death for the murder of Mahabir Singh (husband of thee appellant/accused Prem Kanwar). The appellant Prem Kanwar was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under S. 302/34, IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. one lac or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3-1/2 years. Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences. The record is also before us or confirmation of the death sentence. The appeals and death reference are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Mahabir Singh on the night intervening 29th and 30th December, 1987, was the culmination of the wrong and vicious path of love and last between the deceased's widow Mst. Prem Kanwar (appellant) and the appellant Ash...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Advance Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT791; 1995(32)DRJ273
Usha Mehra, J.1. Shri D. P. Kapoor, the Sole Arbitrator filed his award dated 6th October, 1986 in the matter of arbitration between M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. M/s. Advance Commercial Co. Ltd. On behalf of the claimant notice of filling of the award was accepted on 10th December, 1986 and on behalf of the respondent Mr. R. C. Bhalla, Advocate accepted notice of the filling of award. 2. Vide application bearing IA. No. 763/87, the respondent has filed objections to the award, inter alia, on the ground that the Arbitrator misconducted himself and the proceedings by not affording reasonable opportunity to the respondent to defend the case. Because of being deprived an opportunity, the principles of natural justice has been violated by the Arbitrator. 3. In order to appropriate the objections, the brief facts of this case are that the parties agreed to have their matter adjudicated by an Arbitrator. As per the term of agreement, they were to nominate their respective arbitrators. ...
Tag this Judgment!Juglal Mehto Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1618; ILR1995Delhi271
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Appellant Junglal Method has been convicted of an offence of murder punishment under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code having caused the death of Rajinder Nath Malhotra and also has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian .Penal Code of having caused injuries to Smt. Mahindra Rani Malhotra with intent to cause her death, vide judgment dated February 28, .1989, of an Additional Sessions Judge by the order of the even date, he has sentenced to undergo life. imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00- and in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the first offence of murder and and.ergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and. to pay a fine. of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment torn six months for the offence of attempt to murder, He has filed appeal challenging his convictions and sentences.(2) The co-accused, who was tried Along with the ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ashok Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT239
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The appellant accused Ashok Kumar was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under Section 302. Indian Penal Code . and was sentenced to death for the murder of Mahabir Singh (husband of the appellant accused Prem Kanwar). The appellant Prem Kanwar was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Demi under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. one lac or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3-1/2 years. Appellants have appealed against their convictions and sentences. The record is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence. The appeals and death reference are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) The unfortunate incident, which resulted in the death of Mahabir Singh on the night intervening 29th and 30th December, 1987. was the culmination of the wrong and vicious path of love and lust between the deceased's widow Mst. Prem Kanwar (app...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Harmilapi Vs. Sports Authority of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)678; 57(1995)DLT441
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment disposes of two writ petitions bearing Nos. Cw 3302 of 1992 and Cw 1593 of 1991.(2) The writ petition bearing No. 3302 of 1992 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to respondents to fill up the vacancy by appointing the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director.(3) The brief facts as incorporated in the petition are that the petitioner is holding a Ba Degree as well as diploma in Coaching awarded by the National Institute of Sports (NIS), Patiala and worked as a Badminton Coach in the saidinstitute. He was then attached with the Haryana Sports Department as Senior Badminton Coach from 28.12.198 1/04/1986. In June/July, 1986, Sports Authority of India, respondent No. 1 (for short SAI) advertised for appointment to the post of Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600. The petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications and applied for the said post. He received a call for interview on 4/ 5/12/1985. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Baisiwala Vs. R.S. Baisiwala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995RLR423
Usha Mehra, J. (1) IA. No. 9895/94. Notice was issued to Smt. Purnima Garg asking her to appear for today as her counsel Mr. K.B. Soni wants to get discharge from this case. Instead of appearing or making any alternative arrangement, she has written a letter dated 4th December, 1994 stating that she cannot appear today due to family circumstances. Mr. K.B. Soni, Advocate does not want to represent her. His power of attorney is accordingly discharged. The application stands disposed. (2) IA. No. 4955/92, By this application, the plaintiff seeks amendment to the plaint already filed, inter alia, on the grounds that in the said suit he has asked two relief's-one for partition of Huf properties and rendition of accounts and secondly against the Chanderwati Baisiwala Trust. In order to avoid the legal objection taken by the deft. in their w/s he wants to give up the relief sought against Chandrawati Baisiwal Trust. For that he will file a separate suit for which, he wants permission to sue....
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Foods Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT197TriDel
1. M/s. Madhu Food Products, Hyderabad have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The Id. Collector in his order had held :- "22. Having regard to the foregoing, I hold that the contraventions alleged in the notice are proven. 23. Under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944,I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Madhu Food products, Kathedan, Hyderabad and hold that the biscuits valued Rs. 10,712.58 seized by the officers on 5-6-1984 are liable to confiscation under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, as the goods seized had been provisionally released and are not available for confiscation I appreciate the cash security sum of Rs...furnished by the company. 24. Under Rule 9(2) of the CE Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, I order that duty amounting to Rs. 81/- BED and SED Rs. 4.05 on the 180 kg. of button biscuits valued Rs. 810/- and Rs. 32,867.55 BED + Rs. 1643.38 SED o...
Tag this Judgment!