Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 6 of about 109 results (0.021 seconds)Shakuntala Rani Vs. P.G. Rao
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996RLR57
Arun Kumar, J. (1) The petitioner filed the present eviction petition u/S. 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act), on the ground that she is a widow and the tenanted premises on the ground floor of the property No, 100, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was required by her for her residence. At the time of institution of the eviction petition in November 1993, the age of the petitioner was stated to be seventy-six years. It was petitioner's case that she was living alone on the first floor of the'same property where the respondent is the tenant on the ground floor. Apart from her old age, the petitioner was stated to be suffering from various ailments which made it difficult for her to climb to the first floor. Secondly, it was pleaded that the petitioner had only one issue, i.e., a married daughter who was residing with her husband at Rajkot. The husband of the petitioner's daughter is due to retire in Dec., 1995. The petitioner's daughter is to join her at Delhi after the...
Tag this Judgment!Naturelle Health Products Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT578TriDel
1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the medicated cough drops and throat drops manufactured by the appellants for M/s. Procter & Gamble (India) Limited and marketed under the brand named 'Vicks' are classifiable as patent or proprietary medicaments under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff or as Ayurvedic medicament under sub-heading 3003.30. In his impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad has confirmed the decision of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 3003.10 as a patent or proprietary medicament not as Ayurvedic medicament as claimed by the appellants.2. We have heard Shri A. Hidayatullah, Advocate and Shri V.S. Nankani, Advocate for the appellants. The department's case was represented by Smt. Vijay Zutshi, Director (Publication) and Shri Sharad Bhansali, SDR. We have also considered the written submissions filed by the Advocate for the appellants su...
Tag this Judgment!Asian Cans Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT184TriDel
1. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the mistake that has occurred in the final order of the Tribunal is non-consideration of the appellants' submission that the demand on account of alleged wrong taking of Modvat credit for the month of June, 1989 (sic) is barred by limitation. He states that this was a point which was raised by him during the course of hearing of the appeal even though it was not specifically raised in the Appeal Memo.2. We have gone through the notes maintained by us on the date of hearing of the appeal i.e. 11-1-1995 and it appears that the contention of the Counsel that this point was not considered in the order is correct. In this case, the credit was taken in 1991 while the show cause notice was issued on 1-1-1992 and therefore, the learned Counsel's contention that the demand for the month of June, 1991 (sic) is time barred is correct. Accordingly, we allow the Misc. Application by rectifying the final order of the Tribunal to the extent tha...
Tag this Judgment!Sunny Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT895TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi, against the appellant who is a proprietary concern, the proprietor being Baljit Singh.2. The matter arises with regard to import of spare parts purportedly under two licences, one import licence in the name of the proprietary concern and the other under OGL in the name of one Tejinder Pal Singh.The two imports are covered by two bills of entry dated 1-9-1989 and 18-8-1989, respectively. The department received information that Baljit Singh is importing car spare parts, evading Customs duty by under-invoicing. Enquiries snowed that the bill of entry dated 1-8-1989 related to 11 packages declared as motor spare parts weighing 883 kgs with CIF value Rs. 55,942.00 and clearance was claimed under import licence dated 29-3-1988 in which a balance of Rs. 61,135.00 had been left. The scrutiny of the cargo manifest dated 12-8-1989 showed the particulars of the master airway bill. It was seen that impo...
Tag this Judgment!intercity Cable System (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC601Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-2-1994 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Push Button Dialer, Electronic Private Branch Exchanges and parts thereof. The Central Excise officers visited the appellants' factory on 12-8-1992 and carried out the verification. Thereafter, statement of the Managing Director of the appellant company and also the statement of Managing Director of M/s.Shyam Antenna Electronics Pvt. Ltd. were recorded. After further investigation the appellants were served with a show cause notice dated 30-9-1992 alleging that during the period from 1-1-1987 to 20-8-1992 in terms of para 7 read with Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended by Notification No. 223/87, dated 22-9-1987 the exemption availed by them in respect of telephones and 'EPABX' instruments totally valued at Rs. 3,29,74,528/- under Notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Sd. Gurmukh Singh Anand Huf and Another Vs. Sd. Suchacha Singh Anand a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)505; [1998]91CompCas171(Delhi)
S.D. Pandit, J. 1. Suit No. 2619 of 1992 is filed by Gurmukh Singh Anand against his brother, Surja Singh Anand, and his sons for the dissolution of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants and to take accounts of the said partnership business. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the late Sardar Pachu Singh, father of Gurmukh Singh and the defendant, Surja Singh, has started the business of distribution of petroleum products, like petrol and lubricants in the name and style of Gurmukh Singh at 2775, Lodium road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The said Sardar Pachu Singh expired in the year 1954 and his sons, the plaintiff, Gurmukh Singh, and the defendant, Surja Singh, inherited the said business and then they entered into a partnership and carried on the said business and then they entered into a partnership and carried on the said business partnership from 1954 to 1992. But the plaintiff, Gurmukh Singh, had gone to the United States of America in 1972, and he was there for...
Tag this Judgment!Gurmukh Singh Anand H.U.F. and anr. Vs. Suchacha Singh Anand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT561
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) NO. 2619/92 is filed by Gurmukh Singh Anand against his brother Surja Singh Anand and his sons for the dissolution of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants and to take accounts of the said partnership business. (2) It is the case of the plaintiff that the late Sardar Pachu Singh father of Gurmukh Singh and defendant Surja Singh had started the business of distribution of petroleum products, like petrol and lubricants in the name and style of M/s. Gurmukh Singh at 2775, Lodium Road, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The said Sardar Pachu Singh expired in the year 1954 and his sons, plaintiff Gurmukh Singh and defendant Surja Singh inherited the said business and then they entered into a partnership and carried out the said business partnership from 1954 to 1992. But plaintiff Gurmukh Singh had gone to United States of America in 1972 and he was there for about 10 years. When he came back he found that defendants had opened a separate bank account and instead o...
Tag this Judgment!Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)708; 1995(35)DRJ412; 1996(82)ELT27(Del)
M.J. Rao, C.J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The 1st petitioner is a shipping company in Japan while the 2nd petitioner is a company, acting as the agent of the 1st petitioner at Calcutta. The 1st respondent is the Union of India, the 2nd respondent is the Collector of Customs, Delhi and the 3rd respondent is the Assistant Collector of Customs, Delhi. The 4th respondent is the General Manager, Container Corporation of India, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The 5th respondent is the Collector of Customs (Judicial) New Delhi. (3) The petitioner which is the owner of the containers is, admittedly, not concerned with the validity of the import/export of goods by the consigner or consignee. The nine containers of the petitioners are lying in the inland container depot at Tughlakabad and, in fact, the Customs authorities, Bombay are asking the petitioner to re-export the containers out of India, Bombay being the port through which the containers were imported. The fourth respondent the Container Corporation of I...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Sandeep Malik
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)745; 60(1995)DLT885; 1995(35)DRJ464
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.(1) ADMIT. (2) This is an appeal by the Union of India and the Director General, Border Security Force against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6.4.1995 in Crl. W.P. 75 of 1993 dated 6.4.95, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashing the court-martial proceedings, and the sentence dated 27.6.92 of rigours imprisonment for 4 years and dismissal from service. (3) The charge against the respondent (BSF constable) was one of rape of a Bangla-deshi girl, Ms. Razia Khatoon aged 10 years on 31.3.1992 in Salbagan area, on Indian soil, near the Bangladesh border. The respondent was tried by the General Security Court Martial under Sections 46,47 of the Border Security Force Act read with Section 376 IPC. He was found guilty and awarded sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. (4) The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the some of witnesses were called from the Bangladesh side on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Charanjit Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)717; 60(1995)DLT847; 1995(35)DRJ472; (1996)112PLR55; 1996RLR44
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The appellants are plaintiffs in Suit No. 2000 of 1989. They have filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent (Lahore) read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The appeal has been preferred against an order in is No. 2840/93 allowing a second amendment of the written statement filed by the respondents. (2) The respondents, eight in number, were in possession of a shop in South Extension Part I, New Delhi under a lease dated 2.12.1986. The rent was Rs. 6000.00 per month. After the Delhi Rent Control Act was amended in December,1988 exempting buildings with rent above Rs. 3500.00 p.m. from the purview of the Rent Control Act, the premises in question came out of the purview of that Act. Then the appellants issued notice on 29.5.89 under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, and filed the present suit for possession in 1989. In the original written statement, the respondents accepted that eight of them were in possession under a sing...
Tag this Judgment!