Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pressure Cookers and Appliances

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC330Tri(Delhi)

1. M/s. M.M. Pressing Metal Works, Bombay receive stainless sheets from the Respondent Company. They manufacture separators out of these, which is stated to bear the trade marks 'Hawkins' and 'Universal' registered in the Respondent's name. These separators are supplied to the Respondent for use in the pressure cookers manufactured by it. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise held that the Respondent was the manufacturer of the separators (for computing the value of clearances of goods under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff.In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) found favour with the Respondents and set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise.This appeal is against that Order.2. Shri M.K. Jain, SDR, reiterated the ground in the appeal that according to Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Respondent is the manufacturer of the goods, since he gets the same manufactured by engaging hired labour. He further argues that benefit ...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Maj. (Retd.) I. S. Rekhi and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)195

Usha Mehra, J. 1. The Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) has sought for appointment of an arbitrator for its counter claims. According to the D.D.A. these disputes arose out of the same cause of action/facts on which basis claims of the respondent were referred to the arbitration. 2. The facts of the case are that when the dispute arose between the respondent here with the D.D.A. he sought for referring his disputes to arbitration and accordingly filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. Vide the order of this court dated 8th August, 1988, those disputes as mentioned in the petition were directed to be referred to an arbitrator within eight weeks. Since the D.D.A. filed to appoint an arbitrator within eight weeks, hence this court vide order dated 27th April, 1989 appointed Shri J. D. Goel as the sole arbitrator. By the present petition, the D.D.A. wants its counter claim to be referred to an arbitrator. 3. This petition has been contested by the respondent inte...

Jainsons Export India Vs. Binatone Electronics Ltd. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]85CompCas796(Delhi); 58(1995)DLT571; (1995)111PLR1

J.K. Mehra, J. 1. In this case, the property of the company under liquidation at Bombay was sought to be sold by public auction and such sale being subject to confirmation by this court was confirmed on May 25, 1993, after the court had heard the official liquidator and Mr. B.N. Nayar, who was specially appointed to assist the court to ensure that everything had been done and the maximum price possible under the circumstances had been obtained at such auction. Subsequently, at the instance of the official liquidator and certain parties interested in bidding, the court stayed handing over of the possession of the property to the auction purchaser pending further hearing. The court also wanted to be satisfied about the effect of the non-compliance with rule 139 of the Companies (Court) Rules. 2. On a perusal of the record of this case, I find that this company was wound up on the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industries (Special pr...

M/S. Hitachi Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1996Delhi359

Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. Admit. 2. This is an appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 24, 1994 whereby the declined to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the trade mark 'HITAISHI' in Hindi script, though an ad-interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff-appellant restraining the defendants-respondents from marketing and selling their goods under the trade name 'HITAISHI' written in English script. The factual matrix of the case as set out in the plaint is as follows : 3. The appellant is a Multi-National Corporation having its Head Office in Tokyo. It carries on business through several consolidated subsidiaries and non-consolidated subsidiaries and affiliates in many parts of the world including service net work in 41 countries. The appellant is engaged in diverse activities including the manufacture and sale of wide and varied range of pro...

Hitachi Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kr. Agarwal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT213; 1995(33)DRJ384

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) ADMIT. (2) This is an appeal under Section 109(2) of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act,1958 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 24, 1994 whereby he declined to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the trade mark ' Hitaishi ' in Hindi script, though an ad interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff-appellant restraining the defendants- respondents from marketing and selling their goods under the trade name ' HITAISHI' written in English script. The factual matrix of the case as set out in the plaint is as follows: (3) The appellant is a multi national Corporation having its Head office in Tokyo.It carries on business through several consolidated subsidiaries and non- consolidated subsidiaries and Affiliaties in many parts of the world including service net work in 41 countries. The appellant is engaged in diverse activities including the manufacture and sale of wide and varied range of ...

Satendra Nath Vs. Sushila Rani and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT373; 1995(34)DRJ104

Usha Mehra, J.(1) SH.SATENDER Nath alleges to he the grandson of original tenant Sh.Sarveshwar Nath Nigam. The said Shri Sarveshwar Nath Nigam was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of the premises in question vide registered tenancy a grefcmeni dated 26.1.1938. In the present suit the plaintiff has alleged that the unauthorised construction were in existence from the dale of the inception of this tenancy. There has in fact been no unauthorised construction. The plaintiff only carried out permissible repairs for which under the building bye-laws of the Corporation, as per the building bye-law No.6.4.1, for these repairs no sanction of the Corporation was required. Moreover the construction having been carried out by the plaintiff the notice under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (In short the Act) ought to have been served on the plaintiff. In the absence of such a notice, the action of sealing and demolition is against the law. He had enquired from the landlords about the notice,...

Arbindo Textiles Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)53TTJ(Del)55

ORDERA. SATYANARAYANA, A.M. :This appeal filed by the assessed is against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 5th December, 1989 for the asst. yr. 1988-89 for which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1988.2. The assessed is a partnership consisting of S/Shri Somnath Grover and Arbindo Grover having 60% and 40% shares respectively. It is engaged in the business of textiles being the sub-agent of Bombay Dyeing & . For the assessment year under consideration, the assessed furnished return of income on 30th July, 1988 declaring total income of Rs. 2,72,450. In the assessment order passed on 23rd February, 1989 under s. 143(3) the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 25,438 being advertisement expenditure by observing as under :'It is seen that the assessed has debited advertisement expenditure this year at Rs. 25,991. Last year it was at Rs. 250. Scrutiny of the books reveal that the expenditure of Rs. 25,438 was on account of debit note raised by M/s Lakhmi Chand Matwal Chand. It is claimed that ...

R.S. Sukhija Vs. the Principal, Gita Rattan Jindal Public School

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S. Brar, Member: 1. Complainant has come up in appeal against the order of District Forum-II dated 11.1.93 dismissing his complaint. 2. Facts in brief of the case are that complainant withdrew his daughter Menu, a student of the respondent school before the end of the academic session ending on 31.3.1992 and on 26.3.1992 applied for the Transfer Certificate (TC) and the release of the security deposit so that he could get his daughter admitted in another school. Respondent-school asked him to deposit fees for the month of April before TC could be issued. It is alleged that complainant was harassed and TC was not issued. He then approached Dy. Director of Education (hereinafter referred to DDE) Delhi who directed respondent to issue the TC and complainant forwarded a photocopy of the order to respondent who still did not issue the certificate on the pretext of awaiting the orders in original of DDE. 3. A registered notice was sent to respondent by complainant on 4.4.1992. Still no actio...

Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC308Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal by M/s. Delhi Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 1128-CE/APPL/DLH/90, dated 30-11-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi whereby he had held the order-in-original dated 13-7-1990 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise MOD III, New Delhi insofar as the latter authority had held them to be ineligible for Modvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 1,91,490.24 on glass bottles manufactured by M/s. J.G. Glass Limited but received by them (appellants) from M/s. Arizona Printers and Packers (P) Limited. It was denied on the ground of absence of any endorsement on the Gate Pass or of a subsidiary Gate Pass and also on the ground that the bottles were not received in their original packing.2. In the appeal it has been urged that Arizona Printers & Packers (P) Limited who did the printing on the bottles and supplied them to the appellants as stated in the show cause notice itself had necessarily to unpack the original packin...

Modi Paint and Varnish Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT282TriDel

1. This is a stay application filed with reference to order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 1-9-1993 and styled as Addendum dated 24-1-1995.2. The learned Counsel stated that the learned Collector has passed the final order-in-original No. 19/93, dated 24-1-1995 but after 16 months, they were surprised to receive this Addendum by which a demand of Rs. 1,55,151/-has been confirmed in respect of clearances of Cement Oxide Colour.3. This demand was a part of the show cause notice and the matter had been heard and a final order had been passed in which this demand had not been confirmed. Therefore, it was not open to the Collector to issue now such an order subsequently.It was his submission that after passing the order-in-original No.19/93, the Collector became functus officio and no longer had any authority to pass any further order.4. If however, he felt by any chance that there was any omission, it was open to him to bring the matter to the notice of the Board and for the Boa...