Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments

Khizra Begam Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mst. Khizra Begam, alongwith her husband and son, was travelling from Delhi to Amritsar by Ilnd class as a paid passenger in 8101 UP, Moorie Express leaving New Delhi on 12.10.91. Two constables of the Railway Police, who were posted on duty, started teasing Khizra Begam. She, as well as her husband, objected. One of the constables, who was later on identified as Jaspal Singh, fired a shot from his 303 rifle resulting in serious injury to the left knee of the lady. The matter was reported on reaching Amritsar and a criminal case registered against the constables. The injured instituted a complaint for recovering Rs. 5 lacs as compensation. D.F.-I by its order dated 31.5.94 noted that it was admitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the Railway Minister and the Railway Board had already paid compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. The complaint was dismissed in liminie with the observation tha...

Collector of Customs Vs. National Rayon Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT662TriDel

1. This is a department appeal filed against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 31-10-1985.2. The Learned DR stated that the appellants had imported Special High Precision Gear type Metering Devices in 1979.3. The goods were orginally assessed under Heading 84.63 as Gears.However, subsequently the respondents requested for reassessment under Heading 84.38(1) or 84.10(1).4. The request was rejected but at the appeal stage, the Learned Collector allowed their request for re-classification under Heading 84.38(1).5. It was department's contention that the goods are basically a Gear mechanism and form a part of the system for the manufacture of polyamide yarn. It is, therefore, a kind of Gear system having a metering device. As Heading 84.63 covers all types of Gears along with its assemblies, the goods were correctly classifiable under 84.63 and not under 84.38(1). It was also their contention that since the device has got dual function i.e. pumping of liquid and delivering th...

Emanuely Murd Aiseleph Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ1793

1. I have heard the parties. This is an appeal directed against the order of conviction dated 18-9-1993, passed by Mr. Kuldip Singh, ASJ, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 1983 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years plus a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for another two years. 2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 28-1-1989, in the evening there was an information that Tanzanian national will come with a heavy quantity of smack. On this information, raiding party was organized. Mr. A. C. Sharma, ACP, Crime Branch with the informer reached Kuldip Hotel, Paharganj, New Delhi and held a Nakabandi. At about 9-45 p.m., one Negro came from Paharganj and another Negro was found coming from the eastern side of Paharganj. One Negro coming from eastern side. Amiri Ali Luggage passed on the polythene bag to other Negro, Emanauely Murd Aiseleph, which ...

Saria Devi Vs. Om Prakash Omi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)957; 1996(36)DRJ237

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) This petition has been moved under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1,Om Prakash @ Omi by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Prithvi Raj vide his order dated 20.9.94. (2) The petitioner is Smt. Saria Devi wife of late Shri Hukum Chand. The respondent No.1, Om Prakash @ Omi, is facing trial for allegedly having committed murder of said Hukum Chand (husband of the petitioner) on 12.1.91. He was arrested on 13.1.91, His First bail application was rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 15.9.92. His second bail application was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Prithvi Raj on 29.9.93. This High Court also dismissed the bail petition of respondent No.1 vide order dated 7.1.94. Thereafter third bail application was moved before the trial court presided over by Shri Prithvi Raj, Additional Sessions Judge who had earlier refused bail to the respondent No.1. This application has h...

inalsa Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]87CompCas599(Delhi); 1996(36)DRJ349

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Inalsa Limited, the petitioner herein is Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has five existing Small Scale Undertakings manufacturing different products. First small scale industrial undertaking was set up at 8/9 Kirti Nagar Industrial Aica, New Delhi, in 1973-74 for manufacturing plastic blow moulded items. Other existing undertakings of the First i)clilioner arc manufacturing items reserved under Schedule I for the small scale sector. These industrial undertakings besides manufacturing different items are in fact situated at different locations namely at G.T.Karnal Road Industrial Area, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, Rajinder Nagar Industrial Area, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad etc.(2) On 7th 0ctober,1988 respondents 3 and 4 issued a certificate certifying that first petitioner has separate industrial undertaking registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit (In short Ssi Units). On 25th March,1989 respondent No.2 issued a circular purporting to club investme...

Gurbakshi Rai Vs. Chandgri Ram and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1996)ACC410; 1996ACJ1276; 60(1995)DLT697

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present appeal is directed against the Award dated August 27,1981 passed by Shri R.K. Sain, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, by which the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. (2) The appellant Gurbaksh Rai filed a petition under Section 110-A of. the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents on the plea that on 24th September, 1971, at about 10 p.m. he was traveling in a Mobile Court Van No. DLP-4081 driven by Chandgi Ram, respondent No. I and it was coming from Alipur side towards Delhi. The appellant along with his officers had arrested few persons at G.T.Road for committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and at that time the appellant was escorting all those arrested persons to Police Station Civil Lines, Delhi. He was sitting on the left side of the driver but when the van had covered about 5 miles from Alipur side towards Delhi, it was alleged, that the accused started crying, shouting and creating nuisance inside th...

Khanu Lalchandani Vs. Meenu Lalchandani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ143

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Code) against the order/judgment passed by Mr. B.S. Chaudhry, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.50 of 1994 on 7.2.1995. The prayer in this petition is that the aforesaid judgment/order which has confirmed the order dated 12.7.1994 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate be set aside. (2) The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. It is interesting to note that this petition has been filed by the husband when the learned magistrate did not grant any interim maintenance to the wife and her revision against the order of the magistrate has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the impugned order and resultantly the respondent (wife) has not received any relief either from the magistrate or from the Additional Sessions Judge (the revisional court in this matter). Still the petitioner wants setting aside of the order dated 7...

Sandeep Tak and anr. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)1079; 59(1995)DLT803

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Whether the procedure followed by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'The Institute') in selecting and allocating specialities to students seeking admissions to postgraduate courses is just, fair and reasonable or unfair, unjust and arbitrary, is the principle question which falls for determination in these two petitions.(2) The Institute has been established by Act No. 25 of 1956 passed by the Parliament. It is funded by the Central Government. In the field of medicines, it is one of the premier Institutes in the country. The objects of the Institute, inter alia, are to develop patterns of teaching in postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India and to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education. The Institute prescribes courses and curricula for both under graduate and postgraduate studies. The postgraduate ...

thermax Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT417TriDel

1. These are two appeals regarding the same issue one filed by the appellants M/s. Thermax Ltd. against the Order No. 105/CEX/1991, dated 18-12-1991 and another filed by the department against the Order No.P-219/93, dated 30-9-1993 of the Collector (Appeals) in favour of the Shirke Structural Pvt. Ltd. 2. The learned counsel Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran stated that the appellants M/s. Thermax manufacture GIC SILO Systems meant for storage of grains etc. The dispute has arisen regarding the correct classification and the rate of duty applicable in the case of their product. The rival entries are :- Heading 84.79 (in which the departmental authorities have classified) & Heading 84.36 (which the assessee has claimed) "Other agricultural, horticultural, forestry, poultry-keeping or bee-keeping machinery, including germination plant fitted with mechanical or thermal equipment; poultry incubators and brooders".4. They have filed the pamphlets showing the photographs and sketches of their pro...

Punjab Beverages Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT673TriDel

1. M/s. Punjab Beverages Pvt. Limited have filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 15-9-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar whereby he had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 69,432.60. The duty demand was made on the ground that the appellants had not accounted for crown corks which have been received by them as inputs in the manufacture of their final product, Aerated Water. It was held that the wastage of 150882 crown corks during the period 1-3-1987 to 30-9-1987 had not been disposed of by them in the manner set out in Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governing modvat facility.2. Heard Smt. Archana Wadhwa, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned Departmental Representative.3. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel is that the wastage of crown corks in the course of manufacture of Aerated Water is an unavoidable phenomenon which h...