Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 5 of about 156 results (0.026 seconds)Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Aruna Sawhney
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ691
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of appeal filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (FAO 11/92) as well as cross objections filed by the respondents/claimants against the judgment dated 3rd December, 1991 of Shri Jaswant Singh, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Delhi. The respondents/claimants had filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby they claimed compensation on account of the death of Shri Jagjot Sawhney. The respondents are' the widow of the deceased, his minor children and theparents. The minors, respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their mother, Mrs. Aruna Sawhney who is respondent I to the appeal. The amount claimed by the respondents/claimants was.Rs. 15 lakhs. (2) The facts briefly stated are that on 12th August, 1987 at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased Jagjot Sawhney was riding his scooter No. Dbv 7694 with one Harish Vij sitting in the pillion seat of the scooter. The deceased was going at a slow speed on the correct side of the road...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Building and Furnishing Company Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)267
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed is in appeal against separate orders of CIT(A) - XII, New Delhi dt. 9th September, 1992, 19th July, 1993 and 20th July, 1993 for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91. As the three appeals involve common issues, the same are being decided by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessed company filed the return of income on 30th December, 1989 declaring a loss of Rs. 13,14,010. The AO noted that the company was engaged in the business through its various units which were furnishing Division for manufacturing and sale of wooden furniture, Arms & Ammunitions Division for purchase and sale of arms and ammunition and Model Division for the manufacture of model items for the manufacture of wooden furniture. Apart from the said activities, the assessee-company owned various properties from which it earned rental income. The AO further noted that two of the premises owned by the assessed were M-7 and M-15, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Tarachand and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT94TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents imported a consignment of almonds in shell nonperil quality of 1992 crop from the suppliers M/s. Freehouse Farms Inc; California at U.S. $ 0.87 per lb CIF Bombay as per invoice No. 1056, dated 25-11-1982. The Assistant Collector of Customs passed an order enhancing the assessable value of the imported goods to U.S.$ 1 per lb on the basis of import of almonds in shell against invoice No. 0542806, dated 27-9-1982 issued by M/s.California Almonds, Growers Exchange, California. Against the order passed by the Assistant Collector the respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) in which they made the following submissions : "(a) the appellants had placed indent on 30-7-1982 with M/s. Freehouse Farms Inc; for 110000 lbs of Almonds in shell of non-peril quality of 1982 Crop. They entered into contract on 20-8-1982 at a price of U.S. $ 0.87 per lb CIF ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Raipur Alloy Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT44TriDel
1. The issue of eligibility to Modvat credit on Fire Bricks and Dead Burnt Magnesite used in the manufacture of steel arises for determination in the above appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. The authorities below had extended Modvat credit on these two items treating them as inputs for the manufacture of steel. The case of the Department is that these items are not consumable inputs, do not form part of the finished product, and require frequent replacement and, therefore, form a part of machinery or equipment for producing final product and hence excluded from the benefit of Modvat in terms of Explanation 1(b) to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On the other hand the respondents contend that the items are consumable inputs used in the manufacture of steel; they are used to line the electric arc furnace and serve the same purpose as ramming mass. In fact, Fire Bricks are nothing but a solidified form of ramming mass and a...
Tag this Judgment!Gajender Vohra Vs. the Chief Justice and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1059; 58(1995)DLT610
Devinder Gupta, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred initially on 11th March/1992, seeking directions against the respondents to declare the result of the selection test held on 16th September, 1990 for the posts of Superintendent/Court Master and to immediately appoint the person selected therein against the vacancies falling under 25% selection quota.2. The background in which the petition came to be filed may be stated that on 15th September, 1972, the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') came into force. The first test for selection to the post of Court Master/Superintendent under the Rules was held in 1972 and a panel of successful candidates was prepared. The second test for selection to the said post was held in 1974 and a panel of successful candidates was prepared. The third test for selection took place in 1983 for the post in question in which ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT562TriDel
1. This is an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,44,168/- demanded from the applicants herein by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III, Ghaziabad which has been upheld by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad in the impugned order dt. 31-10-1994.2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the issue involved is the classification of forge products for automobile industry manufactured by the applicants herein. They had claimed classification of these goods under Heading 73.26 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which covers other articles of iron and Steel forging of the same but further work.Further the lower authorities have not accepted their claim for such classification but have held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 72.07 as semi-finished product of iron and steel. The Learned Counsel submitted that the lower authorities were in an error in adopti...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT81TriDel
1. These are cases which have been remanded to the Tribunal by Supreme Court in its order dated 20th August, 1991 in Civil Appeal Nos.4695-98(NM) of 1990 which was filed by the appellants M/s Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. against an Order Nos. 198 to 201/90-A dated 12th March, 1990. A succinct factual background as well as the terms of remand to the Tribunal set out in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court runs as follows : "On November 28,1981, the appellant company applied for a licence to import, inter alia, components of plain paper copiers, the manufacture of which was to be started by them shortly under an agreement of technical collaboration with the Nashua Corporation, U.S.A. The C.I.F. value of the licence applied for was as follows :Item Value Value(i) Components 28.800 2.8800(ii) Accessories 1.007 0.1007(iii) Consumables 14.172 1.4172 ----------- ----------- The details of the components to be imported were set out in an annexure to the application divided into 12 groups. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mahendra Nissan Allwyn Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT81TriDel
1. This is an application filed by the Department seeking stay of the impugned order of Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad dated 31-1-1994. Shri Singh, the learned SDR submitted that the issue arising in this appeal is as to whether the value of the tool kits would be includible in the assessable value of the chassis or not. It was urged that in a similar issue the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in TELCO v. Union of India reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 525 while taking a view that the tools kit supplied with motor vehicle chassis are not eligible for Modvat Credit under Rule 57 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 has also taken note of the fact that the value of such tool kits is included in the assessable value of the chassis. Shri Singh further submitted that the said decision of the Patna High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on 16-8-1994 dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 124/74/94 [see 1994 (73) E.L.T. A129] filed by the Tata Engineering ...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Committee, Quabristan Punj Peeran, Nizamuddin, New Delhi Vs. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1299; AIR1996Delhi80; 1995(34)DRJ60
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, a Managing Committee of Qabristan Punj Peeran, which Committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Delhi Walf Board ('the Board' for short) under the authority conferred upon him by Resolution No. 7 dt. 14 Nov.. 1993 of the Board. Twelve members constitute the petitioner-Committee. The petitioner prays for writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forgetting aside the notice dt. 15th Nov., 1994 issued by the Board and for a declaration that the contract entered into between the Board and Saaz Advertising Company, Okhla, New Delhi, is null and void. Further prayer is for directing the Board to act in accordance with law and not to encroach upon the power and functions of the petitioner including the right of the petitioner to collect charges/rent from the advertising companies whose holdings are installed on the premises of the Qabristan Punj Peeran. We...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. S.B. Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Meena Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi156; 58(1995)DLT23
1. This a Second appealagainst the order of the Rent Control Tribunal setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dimissing objections of the tenant to the Execution application of the landlord which was filed on the expiry of the limited tenancy which was created with the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act').2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are as under:--On 30th October, 1981, the landlord-appellant moved an application under Section 21 of the D.R.C. Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller to let out the premises in dispute being House No. EA/17 Inder Puri, New Delhi-12 on the terms and conditions set out In the proposed agreement annexed to the petition which proposed agreement is signed by both the parties. Clause -- (2) of the said Annexure to the petition reads as under:-- '(2) That the premises shall be used for residential purposes by the lessee and the members of her family ...
Tag this Judgment!