Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 109 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Roplas India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC572Tri(Delhi)
1. This application for condonation of appeal has been filed by the Reverue seeking delay of 15 days in filing this appeal. The Collector (Appeals), Pune passed the impugned order on 14-12-1994 and according to the applicant the last date for filing the appeal was 14-3-1995. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune after final examination had accepted the order-in-appeal on 2-2-1995 after which the same had been sent to Principal Collector's Unit, Bombay for secondary scrutiny on 3-2-1995.After the secondary scrutiny by the Principal Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, the file was despatched on 14-3-1995 and the same was received by the applicant, Collector on 23-3-1995 at 17.30 hrs. As per direction, the appeal has been filed on 27-3-1995, however, the Tribunal has received the appeal papers by Speed Post only [on] 29-3-1995. The Principal Collector has not filed any affidavit to explain the delay in giving the secondary opinion in the matter. There is no day to day explanation from the...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat High Tech Ind. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT652TriDel
1. In this misc. application, the ld. Commissioner is seeking early hearing of the appeal on the ground that the classification of Sulphate Resistant Portland Cement is involved in the appeal and has got a recurring effect. They had made an application for stay which was rejected by the Tribunal by order 22-8-1995. However, the Tribunal had granted the Commissioner liberty to file an application for early hearing. In this application, the ld. Collector has submitted that there is a recurring liability and therefore, he requested for early hearing as classification of the impugned goods are involved. We have considered the submissions. In view of the facts and circumstances and classification of impugned goods involve in this case and the matter having recurring effect and stakes are high, we grant the request for early hearing in this case. Appeal to come up for hearing on 12-1-1996.Notice to be issued. Both sides shall file complete paper book in this before the date of hearing....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Trading Co. Vs. Government of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT462; 1996(36)DRJ177
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This writ petition challenges the notice dated September 7, 1973 issued by the respondents pursuant to the resumption proceedings whereby the respondents resumed 2.64 acres of land with certain constructions of plot No.24, Nathu Singh Road, Cantonment Road, Kanpur. The notice was challenged inter alias on various grounds. Mr.Rajiv Datta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the resumption proceedings is void ab initio because it affects the fundamental right of the petitioners as they have been deprived of their land, which was granted to them under the Government Grants Act vide order No.179 of 1836. Mr.Datta has argued that the right of the petitioners cannot be taken away by any action of the respondents, which deprives the owners of their right, title and interest to the said property. He has also contended that resumption proceedings are otherwise hit by Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India.(2) Another leg of the argume...
Tag this Judgment!Gillander Arbuthnot and Co. Vs. Maya Kapoor
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT419
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) To Adam. Paradise was home To the good among his descendants, home is the Paradise.(2) Realizing thus the importance of home, the legislators in their wisdom amended Delhi Rent Control Act for providing certain class of people speedy and expeditious trial of their cases in order to enable them to secure possession over the tenanted accommodation and thus to have roofs over their heads. Thus they incorporated Sections 14-A, 14B, 14C, 14D m Delhi Rent Control Act by Act No.57 of 1988.The respondent herein who is a retired government servant availed of the said opportunity and came forward with a petition under Section 14C for recovery of possession over premises bearingNo. F-8/18, Vasant Vihar; New Delhi, shown in the plan Ext. PHanexed with the petition.(3) While the said petition was pending respondent/petitioner(hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity)moved: an application under Order Xii Rule 6 of the Code of CivilProcedure. The said app...
Tag this Judgment!Kanwaljet Singh Chowdhary Vs. Harnam Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT827; 1995(35)DRJ468
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.9.1995 in I.A. 8824/94 in Suit No. 2197/94 vacating the interim injunction granted under Order 39, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code on 17.10.1994. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit was filed by the appellant for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of Flat No.28 at the 8th floor of Gopal Das Estate located at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi as per the Will of his mother dated Smt. Nand Kaur dated 8.10.1986. The 1st defendant in the suit is his father Chowdhary Harnam Singh and the 2nd defendant is Gopal Das Estate and Housing Private Ltd. which was constructing the house on the plot. The appellant sought a temporary injunction restraining his father from interfering with the suit property or with the rights of the plaintiff and also requiring the 2nd defendant/builder not to deliver possession of the flat to his father, the 1st defendant pending di...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Imaging and Research Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT97TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Gujarat Imaging & Research Institute, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'GIRT), being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 20-12-1993 of the Collector of Customs, Sahar Airport, Bombay.2. The appellant, M/s. GIRI had imported during February, March, 1991 whole body computed tomography (CT) scanner and other medical equipment, and availed of customs duty exemption under Notification No.64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, which provided exemption to the approved hospital equipment imported by specified category of hospitals, subject to the conditions as provided in the said notification. At the time of the import, the equipment was cleared free of customs duty on the strength of the Certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The importer also executed Bond and furnished guarantee as stipulated in the notification. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 15-12-1993 that the import had been effected on the strength ...
Tag this Judgment!Group Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT440TriDel
1. This appeal arises from orderin-appeal dated 19-8-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The Asstt. Collector had approved the classification lists No. 204 & 205 in respect of goods manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Items 14E and 14F respectively, extending the benefit of slab exemption as envisaged under Notification No.83/83-C.E., dated 1st March, 1983 but holding that the value of goods manufactured elsewhere on behalf of the appellants would be computed for determining the eligibility of benefit given under the said notification. On appeal, the ld. Collector has held that the appellant is a loan licencee for the goods manufactured in the other factories and therefore, there is a case for treating that the appellants are the manufacturers of the appellant's unit at Boisar in terms of Notification No. 83/83-C.E. which uses the words: The ld. Collector has held that the provision of the notification is that the clearances made by or on behalf of the loan lic...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Vishal S. Chhabria
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC385Tri(Delhi)
1. A small but interesting issue has fallen for decision in these three appeals involving the interpretation of the entry "Dates dry all qualities but excluding seedless and raisins". This appears as Entry No. 1 in the Table to Exemption Notification No. 123/92-Cus., dated 1-3-1992. The problem had arisen as the Assistant Collector of Customs had held that raisins are covered by the said entry and are not excluded from its scope. The word 'excluding' was held to cover only the seedless variety of dates and did not extend to raisins. The word 'and' was held to be disjunctive in its effect, separating "seedless" and raisins. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had, however, held that raisins were also covered by the word "excluding" and as a result they were also outside the purview of that entry in the notification. The present appeals have been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the decision of the Collector (Appeals) holding that the aforesaid entry did not cover raisin...
Tag this Judgment!Charat Singh and Co. Vs. Manjit Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT864; (1996)112PLR628
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) This application is filed by the original respondent No. I/Judgment Debtor No. I Manjit Singh under order Ix Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts giving rise to the present application could be briefly stated as under: (2) M/S.CHARAT Singh & Co. is a Motor Financier and he has financed the present applicant in order to purchase a motor vehicle but as the applicant and his guarantor Sukhdev Singh, respondent No. 2 in the original proceeding, had failed to pay the amount, as per agreement between the parties the dispute between them was to be referred to an Arbitrator, he filed Civil Suit No. 529A/87 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The said suit was decreed and Arbitrator was appointed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 12.8.1988 and passed an Award on 23.4.1990. He then filed the Award in this Court on 17.5.1990. On the strength of filing of the said Award Suit No. 1676A/90 was registered in this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Mohan Mehra Vs. Veena Bathla and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)212; 60(1995)DLT338
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the property known as B-36, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. The said defendant was using a part of the said property for doing business of trading in tyres. The plaintiff represented to the said defendant that he had sufficient experience in the running of restaurant and on his representation, defendant No. 1 agreed to open a restaurant in the premises on the ground floor of the said property in partnership with the plaintiff. Subsequently, defendant No. 2 was also associated with the venture and it was agreed that defendant Nos. I and 2 would jointly hold 50% share in the partnership and the other 50% will be held by the plaintiff. A formal partnership deed was, accordingly, entered into between the parties on 11th March, 1993 effective from 29th June, 1992. As per terms of the partnership deed, the parties had agreed for establishing/setting up a restaurant under the name and style of 'Ala Gila' at B- 36, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. The...
Tag this Judgment!