Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 158 results (0.021 seconds)Beekay Cosmetics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC317Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad dated 4-11-1992.2. The Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had a small scale unit and had obtained Central Excise License for manufacturing soap in any form. They had also filed the classification list indicating the Heading No. 3401.10 and subsequently a Modvat declaration also.3. The department's case against them is that they were manufacturing detergent and not soap and had mis-disclared their product and thereby got the classification approved under wrong heading.4. It was however, their contention that they had not suppressed or mis-stated any fact and had described their product in terms of the tariff description as soap, organic surface active products and preparations for use as soap in the form of bars, cakes, moulded pieces or shapes whether or not containing soap - soap in any form - GUIDE, DETERGENT CAKES (GUIDE, Blue, Green and Yellow cakes). Thus they had fully described their product.5....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Ankit Audio Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC321Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay is aggrieved by the order dated 18-4-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had set aside the order dated 9-11-1993 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay enhancing the assessable value of a consignment of switches imported by the respondents herein. The brief factual background as set out in the impugned order is as follows :- "M/s. Ankit Audio Industries, (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) imported a consignment of "Switches DXT-15-8-1" (Rating 220 v and 2.5 Amps) of Chinese origin from Singapore under invoice number TT/387 dt. 30-10-1992. The value declared was Singapore $ 0.25/pc FOB. However, the Additional Collector enhanced the value of impugned goods to that of observed price in case of M/s. Sulabh Corporation after extending a quantity discount of 10% over the observed price. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred an appeal. This office set aside the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Arvind Construction Company Vs. M/S. Engineering Projects
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995VIIAD(Delhi)497
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Objections to the award dated 31.8.1990 made by the Arbitrator. Shri Prakash Narain, for Chief Justice, in relation to a contract dated 5.5.1980 had been filed by respondent. The respondent has challenged the award on many grounds. Shri Y. R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared for respondent at the outset argued that the award was a non-speaking award and respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking and, thereforee, learned Arbitrator was under a bounded legal obligation to mark a speaking award. Mr. Reddy has further contended that the Arbitrator has committed legal misconduct by giving a lump sum award and not giving claim-wise award. 2. Mr. Reddy vehemently contended that the award in favor of the petitioner is disproportionately high baying regard to the totality of the circumstances. He has submitted that petitioner had claimed large amount towards Factual expenses alleged to have been incurred by the petitioner in foreign currency and there...
Tag this Judgment!Jaivir Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1477; 1995(2)Crimes18; 57(1995)DLT479
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) The police file has been opened and seen by us during the course of the arguments.(2) An Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, vide his judgment dated 23/12/1989, has convicted the accused Sukhbir Singh for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and had convicted the appellant Jaivir Singh for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and vide his subsequent order dated 8/01/1990, has sentenced Sukhbir Singh to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment more and has sentenced the appellant Jaivir Singh to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment anda fine ofRs.l,000.00 and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment more for the offence punishable under Section 394 read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chand Gupta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ313
Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The prayer in this application is to set aside this Court's order dated 10.11.1994 and to restore C.W.789/85 which was dismissed for default on 10.11.1994. Consequent to the dismissal of Cw 789/85, CMs.4578, 8613/93 also stood dismissed. CM.4578/93 was an application filed by a third party Shri Subash Chand Gupta son of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta praying to implead him as additional petitioner in the writ petition. CM.8613/93 was an application filed by the respondent praying to dismiss the writ petition or to vacate the stay order. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition CW.789/85, the CMs.4578/93 & 8613/93 could not survive and consequently they also stood dismissed on 10.11.1994. (2) This application i.e. CM.8794/94 is filed by Shri Subhash Chand Gupta son of Shri Ram Kumar Gupta who had filed CM.4578/93. C.W.789/85 was filed by one Shri Hem Chand Gupta s/o late Shri Kanhaiya Lal and six others challenging the land acquisition proceedings in respect of certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Gitanjli Motors Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)361; [1996]85CompCas485(Delhi); 1995CriLJ1222; 1995(1)Crimes342; 57(1995)DLT230; 1995(32)DRJ125; (1995)110PLR17; 1995RLR110
Arun Kumar, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, dated 13.2.1992 whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent was returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. (2) Briefly the facts are that the complainant is a leasing company having its registered office in Bangalore and a local office at 1 E, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. The complainant received from respondent No. 1 on 25.10.91 two cheques for Rs.3,60,000.00 each being the installments due towards the lease finance charges. The said cheques were deposited by the complainant with its bankers at New Delhi for encashment on 23.11.91 and 23.12.91. Both the cheques were returned dishonoured. As per the complaint the notice of dishonour was given as per Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Despite the...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Babu Gupta Vs. Attri Foundation and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)661; 57(1995)DLT531
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition arises out of the order dated 2 7/07/1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 333/91. The learned Judge dismissed the application of the plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of the plaint which was filed under Order 6, Rule l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The brief facts of the case which are relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in the trial Court wherein a prayer was made that a decree for possession in respect of property in respect of part of the property bearing No. B-12,Savitri Nagar(SheikhSarai), New Delhi and as defined in the plaint be passed against the defendants/respondents. The written statement was filed by the respondent and the following issues with regard to the title of the property apart from other issues were framed: (I)Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit, as alleged in the plaint? OPP(ii...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Nupur Professionals Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. Presteege Fibr ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)642; AIR1995Delhi237
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seek a writ of mandamus quashing the Letter of Intent dated 31 March 1994 issued to the first respondent by the Central Government in the Ministry of industry, Department of Industrial Development, for establishing a sugar factory at Dhaulana, District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the manufacture of sugar with daily cane crushing capacity of 2500 TCD. They also seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Central Government to consider the application of the petitioners for grant to the first petitioner a license for setting up of the sugar mill at Dhauiana on the basis of the recommendation of the screening committee and the Administrative Ministry being the Ministry of Food in view of the provisions of Article 77 of the Constitution read with Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. Second petitioner is the Director...
Tag this Judgment!Gurdeep Singh Dau and Others Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Commit ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi182; ILR1995Delhi460
ORDERD. P. Wadhwa, J.1. This, it wouldappear, is the second round of litigation. The first (CWP No. 2630/ 94) was dismissed on 26 July 1994 principally on the ground that the Court was not satisfied about the bona fides of the petitioners therein in filling the petition. The challenge in both these petitions is the same. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,order or direction quashing the proceedings of the meetings held on 10. May 1994 and 21 May 1994 and also Resolution No. 9 dated 26 May 1994 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, established under Section 3 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act. 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner also seek a restraint on the respondent to take any further action pursuant to the minutes of the two meetings dated 10 May 1994 and 21 May 1994 and the Resolution No. 9 dated 26 May 1994. Yet another prayer is that the respondent be commanded to restore the Committees and the Governing Bodies of...
Tag this Judgment!Walaiti Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)703; 1995(1)ARBLR338(Delhi); 1995(32)DRJ679
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition has been filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, for directing respondent no.3 to file the award dated May 19, 1990, and the arbitration proceedings and to make the same Rule of the Court. (2) Brief facts of the case are that respondents 1 and 2 on behalf of the President of India had accepted the tender of the petitioner for the work of provision of hutted accommodation for officers and JCOs at Hissar. The tender was accepted vide letter dated July 28, 1982 for a total sum of Rs.44,61,110.88. The parties thereafter entered into a formal contract wherein the general terms and conditions of the notice of tender of Military Engineering Service were applicable and the said contract provided for reference of disputes to arbitration. Clause 70 may be reproduced as follows: '70Arbitration - All disputes, between the parties to the contract ( other than those for which the decision of the C.W.E. or any other person is by the ...
Tag this Judgment!