Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rameshwar Solanki Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi358; 57(1995)DLT410; 1995(32)DRJ559
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) By this judgment we propose to deal with the Regular First Appeals that have arisen out of the acquisition of certain land in village Palam.(2) The relevant notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued on 27.01.1984. Statement under section 19 of the Act showing the khasra numbers, area of the land and the share of the persons in each of the khasra was also prepared. There is no dispute regarding the extent of the land, or the share of the appellant in the land. The Land Acquisition Collector had divided the land in three blocks 'A', 'B' and 'C', and has given compensation to the appellant land @ Rs.8,400.00 per bigha for block 'A', Rs.6,000.00 per bigha for block 'B' and Rs.3,000.00 per bigha for block 'C'.(3) Being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellant filed reference under Section 18 of the Act, saying that the land in question which has been acquired, could ...
Siv Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT401TriDel
1. Arguing on the application, Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel, submitted that the issue involved in the instant case relates to the classification of "Dryer Dropping Fibre". He submitted that, according to the appellants, the said goods are to be classified under Heading 5503.20 whereas both the authorities below have classified the same under Heading 5502. He took us through the grounds of appeal to substantiate his contention. Shri Mohan Lal, learned JDR, while supporting the impugned Orders submitted that the classification of the subject goods has been done on the basis of the chemical report and, therefore, the appellants have no prima facie case.2. Considered. The issue of classification in the instant case, as aforesaid, is a contentious one and require detailed arguments. Prima facie, the findings of the authorities below are based on the report of the chemist. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the appellants have a prima facie case for dispensation of ...
Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT182TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Parle Products (P) Ltd., being aggrieved with the Order-in-appeal No. PAH-390/131-134, dated 3-7-1987, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The matter relates to the inclusion of the cost of the capsul, fitted over the lid on the metal container, popularly known as KOT (Kerosin oil tin) container, in which the biscuits were packed. The appellants were availing exemption under Notification No. 34/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983, which exempted among others, the biscuits from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise leviable on said biscuits, with reference to that part of the value of the said biscuits which represented the cost of metal containers, in which the said biscuits were packed, at the time of their removal from the factory. The contention of the Revenue is that the capsul was fitted on the KOT containers over the lid as an additional fitment, and did not form part of the metal co...
D.N. Ahluwalia Vs. A.N. Wanchoo and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)974; 57(1995)DLT639
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Plaintiff, D.N. Ahluwalia by this suit wants to be declared the absolute owner of the annexee portion including land under neath Kothi No. 6, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. His claim is based on the 'Will'dated 28/08/1984, executed by late Smt. Rajeshwari, owner of this property.In the alternative, he has claimed ownership of this annexee portion on account ofpeaceful, open and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of this annexee as owner thereof for a period of more than 12 years.(2) During the pendency of the suit, present application has been filed seeking restraining order against the defendants from dispossessing him from the annexee in question. He has based his claim primarily on the ground that he Along with his family members had been residing in this portion of the house for a considerable long time as owner/occupier. He has explained how he became owner of thisproperty. According to him he was an employee of a firm M/s.Mohan Brothers(hereinafter calle...
S.P.G.C. Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT704TriDel
1. Both the above miscellaneous applications pertain to the appellant's prayer for out of turn hearing. Shri N. Ramanathan, learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He pleaded that the appellants' Directors are facing criminal prosecution in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and the criminal prosecution is in respect of the present proceedings which are pending before the Tribunal and as such he pleaded for out of turn hearing.Shri R.K. Kapoor, ld. SDR for the respondent does not object to the appellants' prayer for out of turn hearing in view of the facts stated by the learned Consultant.2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant company's Directors are facing criminal prosecution, we are of the view that it is a fit case where out of turn hearing should be granted. We order accordingly. The matter will be heard on merits. The matter is fixed fo...
Lml Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT154TriDel
1. These are two appeals. Appeal No. E/4697/92-A is filed against the Order-in-Original No. 2/Collr./MP/92, dt. 30-6-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Ex., Kanpur and Appeal No. E/2394/93-E is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 72/CE/KNP/93, dt. 5-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Ex. & Customs (Appeals), Allahabad. Since these two appeals are interlinked and connected they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants M/s. LML Ltd. (formerly known as Lohia Machines Ltd.) C-6 to 10 Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur are manufacturers of Motor Vehicles (Scooters) falling under erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 34 upto 28-2-1986 and after that under C.H. 87.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was charged that they were evading payment of appropriate Central Excise duty by lowering the assessable value of their product. Accordingly proceedings were initiated. Shri R.Santhanam, learned Advocate appearing for the appel...
Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT170TriDel
1. In view of the issue involved in this stay petition and the connected appeal lying within a narrow compass, we felt like taking up the appeal itself straightaway after granting waiver of pre-deposit as a condition for doing so. We order accordingly on the question of waiver of predeposit and proceed to take up the appeal, which we do with the consent of both sides.2. We heard Shri C.D. Banga, learned Consultant for the petitioners and Shri Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned SDR for the Revenue.3. Modvat credit had been disallowed in this case on the ground that the duty paying document did not bear the endorsement in favour of the appellants./manufacturers. We find, however, that the gate pass issued by the supplier of the subject inputs shows the name of the appellants M/s. Electronics Ltd. as the customers. There is another entry captioned "consignee's name and address" showing the name of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. A/C Electronics Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana. It was explained by the learned ...
Rama Saroop Vs. Daljit Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi351; 58(1995)DLT783; 1995RLR152
1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an eviction petition was filed by Daljit Singh, respondent herein against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(d) seeking his eviction from premises No. 5-A, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. This petition was filed on 11th August, 1986. According to the tenant (petitioner herein), he was in detention since October, 1985. The notice of the eviction petition was served through publication in newspaper on 12th November, 1986. The tenant was thereafter proceeded ex parte and an eviction order was passed on 18th February, 1987. In execution of the said eviction order, Daijit Singh obtained possession of the tenancy premises on Sth May, 1987. The tenant was released from jail on 9th May, 1987 but was placed under house arrest. On 25th May, 1987, the tenant moved application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parteeviction order. On the same date, the Additional Rent Controller passed an interim order in favor of t...
Jagdish Pd. Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2501; 55(1994)DLT315
P.K. Bahri, J.1. The appellant, Jagdish Prasad. s/o Sh. Babu Ram, aged about 31 years, permanent resident of Gulab Vatika, Loni Road, Ghaziabad has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated August 24, 1990 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdra and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year vide order dated September 5, 1990 with further following directions : 'Till such time the Legislature does not prescribe forcible castration. I feel some beginning should/could be made by including convicts of such heinous crimes to opt for voluntary castration so that they could be of help and utility to their dear ones rather than keep on languishing in jail for life. It thereforee, hold and lay down that in case the accused undergoes voluntary surgical operation of castration, to be certified by the Medical Supdt. of the gover...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. V.P. Dhingra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1995
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT282
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) An order passed on 22.12.1993 by Shri J.K. Pali,Senior Sub Judge, Delhi is under challenge by the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which a direction was made in a petition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner to restore the Public CallOffice Telephone No. 3278942 installed at 751, Sui Walan, Darya Ganj, Delhi. In thealternative, a prayer is made that revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure be exercised for questioning the impugned order.(2) The Public Call facility through telephone No. 3278942 was available at the aforementioned premises where the respondent has been doing the practice in medicines for the last more than 30 years. It has been the case of the respondent that the had been operating as a Pco Agent of the petitioner under an agreement and the facility of Pco is available at the premises for the last about two decades. On25.1.1993 a show cause notice was issued...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »