Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 8 of about 128 results (0.022 seconds)Ravinder Kishinchand Thadani and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Kundanmal Hira and a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT276
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) By this application, defendant No. I prays for direction to New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) to permit defendant No. I to construct the staircase within the area physically allotted to defendant No. I of the property bearing No. D-60, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi for excess to the first floor and the Bersati floor of his portion and for appropriate orders in this regard. (2) It has been submitted by Mr. Thadani, Counsel for defendant No. 1 that suit No. 907/80 came to be filed for partition of property No. D-60, Malcha Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi by the two brothers as the plaintiffs, alleging 50'X undivided share in the suit property against defendant No. 1, who had the balance 50% undivided share in the suit property; that defendant No. 2, Union of lndia underneath building judgment and decree dated 30.3.1987 whereunder the property was divided vertically in two parts A and B, part A going to the plaintiffs and part B to defendant No. 1, on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!SarpIn Pharmacal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT330TriDel
1. The captioned three appeals are directed against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Central Excise & Customs (II), Ahmedabad. In the impugned order, the learned Collector, Central Excise had confirmed the demand for duty amounting to Rs.12,29,510.98 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. Sarpin Pharmaceticals, Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Nandkishore Balubhai Desai and Rs. 40,000/on Shri Kiranbhai Dahyabhai Patel, partners of M/s. Sarpin Pharmaceuticals, Nadiad. As these appeals arise out of the same order, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the case in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P & P Medicines. They were manufacturing two P & P medicines namely "Merizyme Elixer" and "Merizyme Drops". As these two branded medicines were being sold to M/s. Mercury Laboratories Pvt.Ltd., Baroda, the Department was of the view that these two medicines were P & P medicines and were the product of M...
Tag this Judgment!German Homeopathic Distributors Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT329TriDel
1. The captioned appeals have been filed by the appellants against the orders of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his orders had held : "50. For the reasons mentioned in pre-pages, I hold that the impugned goods, i.e. Sugar of Milk, are correctly classifiable under CTH 1702.10 and not under CTH 3004.90, and the less charge demands raised by the lower authorities are fair and correct. I confirm the same. However, out of the four less charge demands, two covered by S/2-154/89 Gr. 2A in respect of bill of entry Cash No. HC 6725/20-12-1988 and HC 1490/8-9-1988, respectively are hit by limitation of time of six months, under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and hence, barred by limitation." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported four consignments declared as "Homeopathic Medicine (Single) Sugar of Milk 200 Mesh HMS"; that in their invoices bills of entry they claimed clearance thereof under Chapter Heading 3004.90 read with Notification No. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Leather Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT493TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by (1) M/s. Poonam Leather Industries, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra (2) Shri Dada Saheb Shinde and (3) Shri Lalit Ajmera, against the common Order-in-Original dated 22-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin. As all the three appeals arise from the same order and involve common issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter relates to the mis-declaration of the quantity and value of the goods imported; described as stamping foils for Leather Industry, imported in violation of the Import Trade Control Regulations. In the show cause notice dated 12-8-1992, it was alleged that the goods in question were liable to confiscation. M/s. Poonam Leather Industries were liable to pay customs duty of Rs. 14,18,012 attempted to be evaded by them, and all the three noticees were liable to penalty. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs, Cochin, who under his Order-in-Original dated 22-4-1993 read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Montari Overseas Limited Vs. Montari Industries Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1997Delhi64
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated March 1, 1995 passed in 1.A. 129/95 in Suit No. 43/95, whereby the appellant (defendant in the suit was injuncted from using the word 'MOMTARI' or any other word deceptively similar thereto as part of its corporate name. (2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- (3) M/S. Montari Industries Ltd. the respondent (plaintiff in suit) was incorporated on January 27, 1983. As per the assertion of the respondent it has several subsidiaries namely Montari Leasing & Finance Ltd., Montari Chem Care Investments Ltd., Montari Agro Chem Investments Ltd., Montari Leather Ltd., Montari Financial services Ltd. and Montari Inks Ltd. The respondent and its subsidiaries are said to be manufacturing products like Chemicals agro-Chemicals, paints cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, leather articles, tea, coffee, clothing carpets, inks, food articles etc. The respondent also claims to have a .turn over of Rs. 9...
Tag this Judgment!independent Television Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Monica Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)73; 61(1996)DLT299; 1996(36)DRJ336
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 24, 1995, in I.A. No. 4088/91 in Suit No. 1230/91. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as under: (2) The appellant company, which was the plaintiff in the suit, placed two orders with respondent No.1 (defendant in the suit) for supply of Onida blank video cassettes. Under order dated February 12, 1991, the respondent was required to supply 2400 video cassettes with TDK/SKC tape of 75 minutes duration each and 700 cassettes of 90 minutes duration each. By another order dated February 25, 1991, placed by the appellant on the respondent the latter was required to supply 950 cassettes of 75 minutes duration each and 550 cassettes of 90 minutes duration each. The parties had agreed that the outers of the video cassettes shall be of G3 or equivalent quality. It was further stipulated that any cassette with manufacturing defect was liable to be returned to respondent No.1 within 30 days from ...
Tag this Judgment!Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. Potato and Onion Merchant Ass ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT423
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. (1) The Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Panchwati, Azadpur, Delhi (hereinafter called the Market Committee) is the defendant in the suit and has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in is 7250/94 in Suit No. 1591 /94. (2) The said I.A. was filed under Order 39. Rule I Civil Procedure Code by the respondent (M/ s Potato & Onion Merchants Association) (hereinafter called Merchants Association) for granting temporary injunction against the appellant. By order dated 22.8.94, the learned Single Judge held that the license given by the appellant-Market Committee to the respondent-Merchants Association dated 1.4.79, fell under Section 34 of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) and could have, thereforee, been revoked only after giving opportunity under Section 35(3). As no such opportunity was given the appellant was to be restrained from taking any action in pursuance of its ...
Tag this Judgment!Dsco Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Delhi State Cooperative B ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)369; 61(1996)DLT316
Vijender Jain, J.(1) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the both the parties at length. The short question involved in this petition is as to whether the action of the respondents in appropriating the amount, which was paid by the petitioner towards repayment of debt in the interest amount, is justified or not. (2) The award was for a sum of Rs. 15,77,200.00 along with interest amounting to Rs. 2,71,000.00 in addition to the cost amounting to Rs. 56,000.00. -The petitioner was also liable to pay future interest till realisation as per the award. It seems that thereafter there was some agreement between the parties and in terms of that agreement the respondent No. I-Cooperative Bank agreed on 31st August, 1987 to have the amount paid by the petitioner in Installments of Rs. 30,000.00 per month, i.e. Rs. 20,000.00 towards repayment of principal amount and Rs. 10,000.00 towards the payment of interest. It is the case of the petitioner that from October, 1987 to...
Tag this Judgment!Harbhajan Kaur and ors. Vs. Rattan Chand Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT293; 1996RLR94
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of the learned Single lodge dated September 25, 1995, in I.A. No. 4414/95 in Suit No. 15/84. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:(2) The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dated December 30,1978, against the respondent-defendant in respect of property No.J-96, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. On April 5, 1991, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted a decree for specific performance in favor of the appellants on the condition of their depositing the outstanding purchase price/sale consideration amounting to Rs. 1,68,000.00 within six weeks. The appellants failed to deposit the said sum of money within the time prescribed by the Court. Since the appellants failed to fulfill their obligation under the decree inasmuch as the amount was not deposited within the time allowed by the Court, they filed an application for extension of time and for condensation of delay in deposit...
Tag this Judgment!Barun Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT94
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. This is an appeal directed against the order/Judgment of conviction dated 16.01.1993, passed by Mr. Kuldcep Singh,ASJ, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten yea(2) Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that on 14.7.1989, Asi Ram Kishan Along with Si Sri Kishan, Constable Ved Pal and Spo Hari Ram was present in the area of P.S. Nangloi. They received an information that a person who sells opium and is in possession of opium,is standing at the corner of Kamruddin Nagar waiting for the customers. They formed a raiding party and requested the passers-by to join, but no body agreed. Asi also informed the Sho about the secret information on telephone and requested him to reach the corner of Kamruddin Nagar, Najafgarh Road. Asi Along with the other staff reached the spot and arrested the accused. It is c...
Tag this Judgment!