Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 14 of about 158 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Orient Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC562Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents entered into contracts with different parties for the supply of vibrating feeders which are designed, erected and commissioned by them at the site. The electric motors required for vibrating feeders and certain mandatory spares supplied along with the vibrating feeders are bought by the respondents from other manufacturers. They received advance on account of part of the contracted price of the vibrating feeders. By the impugned order the Collector (Appeals) held that the cost of bought out motor and mandatory spares and also the interest on the advance payment received by the respondents could not be treated as part of the assessable value of the vibrating feeders. The Collector (Appeals) also held that erection and commissioning charges also could not be deemed as part of the vibrating feeders. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) the Department has filed the present appeal.2. On behalf of the appellants Shri B.K. Singh, Ld. SDR stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Badri Prasad and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT624TriDel
1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs in Delhi, by which he has imposed penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 of Rs. 2,00,000/- on M/s. Badri Prasad & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/- on M/s. Om Tour & Travel Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts leading to the Collector's orders are briefly this. M/s.Badri Prasad & Sons had filed a shipping bill at the Indira Gandhi International Airport for export of hosiery fabrics with the gross weight of 6841 kgs. Subsequent to the shipping bill having been passed, when the goods were received by the carrier M/s. Thai Airways, it amended the weight in the airway bill from 6841 kgs. to 2770 kgs. This amendment is stated to have been made as a result of actual weighment of the goods. Subsequently, the Collector came to know about the change in the weight, and carried out investigation. On the basis of this investigation, show cause notices were issued among others to M/s.Badri Prasad & Sons, the exporter an...
Tag this Judgment!Rupnarayanpur Metal and Wire Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT116TriDel
1. The issu in this appeal is the classification of the casting of bars manufactured by the aappellant and the consequential eligibility or otherwise in Notification 67/89-C.E. The appellant by his letter dated 6th October, 1994 has waived the hearing and requested a decision on merits. The Collector of Central Excise also filed a Cross-objection and was represented by Shri K.K. Jha, SDR.2. The Cross-objection filed by the Collector is hopelessly barred by limitations, having been received on 22nd December, 1993, whereas the notice has been received on 31-3-1992. No satisfactory reason has been furnished for the delay in the application for condonation. The Cross-objection is dismissed as barred by limitation.3. The facts leading to appeal are briefly, as follows. The appellant claimed the classification of the "bars of refined copper" manufactured by it under Heading 7407.11 of Central Excise Tariff and also claimed the benefit of Notification 67/89-C.E., dated 1st March, 1989. The A...
Tag this Judgment!Nageshwar Shah Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2184
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Nageshwar Shah of Village Pamay, Paur, Bihar is convicted by the Additional Sessions judge, Delhi in Session's case No. 50/86 on 20th March, 1989 for the offence punishable under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code and S. 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer SI for four months under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer-RI for two years under Section 27 of Arms Act. 2. Deceased Meena was married to the present appellant about one year prior to the date of incident which took place on 14th April, 1986. Deceased Meena was aged about 14-15 years at the time of the incident and the appellant was aged about 30-32 years. it seems that due to the difference of age Meena did not want to live with her husband Nageshwar and there were frequent quarrels between the two and they used to fight physically also. On 6th April, 1986 first informant Indla wife of Jagdish had gone to the house of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IVAD(Delhi)1056; 1995CriLJ1422
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner-detenu for quashing the order of detention dated 2-9-1993 passed by the respondent under Sec. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act') passed by the Joint Secretary of respondent No. 1. 2. Ms. Sangita Nanchahal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the irrelevant material was considered by the detaining authority and consideration of irrelevant material by the detaining authority shows non-application of mind by the respondent. She has argued that as per their own averments the respondent has considered certain documents such as application dated 5-5-1993 for grant of 'B' class jail and Court's Order thereon filed by John Anthony Zmak, co-accused of the petitioner, application dated 5-5-93 for medical examination and reports and statement of Harsh Talwar of M/s York International dated 1-6-1993. On the basis of these mate...
Tag this Judgment!Castrol Ltd. Vs. Shri Subhash Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)619; 1995(1)ARBLR274(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT147
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The plaintiffs M/s. Castrol Ltd., U.K. and Castrol India Ltd., Bombay and New Delhi have filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing-off, rendition of accounts etc. 2. On 10.5.1994, the court has issued an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the words 'INDOL' in connection with wheel bearing grease and multi purpose grease, and 'INDEROIL' in connection with brake fluids. The defendants have sought for vacating the injunction order. 3. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor in India of several trade marks including the trade mark 'CASTROL'. The plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of several trade marks bearing the name 'INDROL'. The relevant registered trade marks are : (a) Trade mark Indrol registered under No. 400575 as of 27.1.1983 in respondent of Hydraulic fluids (not being oils) antifreeze preparations in fluid form, Chemical products, catalysts, ...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Sharma Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT225; 1995(32)DRJ361; (1995)110PLR13
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) By order dated 27.7.1994 an award made by an arbitrator has been directed to be made a rule of the court as none of the parties had preferred any objection to the award though the period of limitation prescribed thereforee, from the date of the service of the notice of filing of the award, had expired.(2) These applications have been filed on behalf of the respondent Union of India on 14.12.1994 whereby they have now (i) filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, (ii) sought for condensation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the objections, (iii) sought for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.7.94 under Order 9 Rule 13 Cpc, and (iv) also sought for stay of the execution.(3) According to the respondent the notice of filing of the award addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhavan, 20- Ashoka Road, was not a proper notice in as much as it was neither correctly addressed nor accompanied by any ...
Tag this Judgment!Victoria Engineering Works and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi253; 1995(32)DRJ638
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These two petitions raise a common question and can be disposed of by this judgment. In both these petitions the petitioners challenge limited tender for supply of 52000 numbers of 15 Meters Tubular Self Supporting Masts/Towers issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Telecom Commission, Ministry of Communication, Government of India. Limited tender documents have been issued to 24 parties who have been made respondents 5 to 27 in writ petition No. 4091/94. In writ petition No. 4353/94, however, there are only two respondents, and the names of the parties to whom limited tender documents had been issued have been separately mentioned in Annexure-I to the petition. We do not think for the purpose of the issues involved in these petitions those parties are either proper or necessary parties. We will, thereforee, strike out their names in Civil Writ Petition No. 4091/94. We in fact limited the notice of this petition only to respondents 1 to 4. These petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)425; 57(1995)DLT642; 1995(32)DRJ733; (1995)110PLR28
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The Court in deciding the question of Court fee should look into the allegations in the plaint to see what is the substantive relief that is asked for; mere astuteness indrafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for - observed their Lordship in Shamsher Singh VS . Rajinder Prashad & Ors., : [1974]1SCR322 . So is the view taken by Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Mahant Purushottam Dass & Ors. VS . Har Narain & Ors., : [1978]113ITR389(Delhi) .(2) The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction seeking the following reliefs :- i) to grant a declaration to the effect that funning contract No.J/13018/3/27/79/PUR.II dated 6.2.1979 is non-est and void; ii) and in the alternative, for the grant of declaration that the contract, if any, was rendered void and the plaintiff was not obliged to make any supplies under supply order No.J/13018/3/27/NINE/79/PUR.II dated 29:10.1979 since t...
Tag this Judgment!Madarsa Road Residents' Association and Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi195; 58(1995)DLT305; 1995RLR124
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The petitioners-first petitioner being anassociationof residents living in Madarsa Road which is primarily a residential area and the second petitioner being a resident of that area, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking various directions to the respondents to stop the plying of heavy vehicles in the area to control the pollution and to declare the area a silence zone. When the petition was originally filed there were threerespondents. The fourth respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi was imploded by the order of this Court as that is the authority who is to put barricades.There cannot be any dispute that the problem of congestion in the area is acute and because of plying of vehicles, particularly heavy and medium transportvehicles, some time the road in the locality gets blocked causing great inconvenience to the residents, not to motion the pollution caused by emission of fuel from the vehicles, blowing of horns and danger to ...
Tag this Judgment!