Delhi Court May 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 12 of about 141 results (0.022 seconds)Ravi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3593; 1995(33)DRJ682
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) An Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi vide his judgment dated December 23, 1988 has convicted appellant Ravi guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . of having caused the murder of one Satinder Singh and under Section 324 for having caused simple injury with sharp edged weapon to Sh.Amrit Pal Singh and held the other two appellants, Joginder @ Kallu and Om Prakash and one Sham Sunder, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.16/89, since deceased, guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 and 324 Indian Penal Code . both read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code . and by subsequent order dated December 24 1988, he sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence of murder and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and sentenced them to undergo one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence und...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Narang Vs. the State (Cbi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIAD(Delhi)656; 1995(34)DRJ151
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This appeal is filed by the appellant for setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) Briefly the facts of the case are that two stone pillars which were lying in Surajkund were stolen some time in March in the intervening night of 31st March and 1st April, 1967. On 1.4.67 Fir No.72/67 under Section 380 Indian Penal Code was registered with local Police Station Bhutana, Distt. Karnal. The two pillars were found lying in a tank situated in Jandiala in the area of Faridabad. on 2.5.67 these pillars were recovered. On 3.10.67 challan was filed in the court of Shri R.K.Sain, Ilaqa Magistrate, P.S. Bhutana against Baliram Sharma and two others. On 1.3.68 application was filed by N.N.Malik who became approver (now dead) for taking on superdari these pillars. On 1,3.68 pillars were given on superdari to N.N.Malik by Shri R.K.Sain, llaqa Magistrate at the instance of H.L.Mehra, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Kwatity Steel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ727
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.(2) The petitioner is a large scale industrial power (LIP) consumer and enjoying electricity supply from the respondent. According to the petitioner its meter became defective in the month of August, 1991. On a complaint being made it was removed by the officials of the respondent on 7.5.92, on which date the respondent also installed a new meter. The defective meter is still lying with the respondent but the petitioner has been billed provisionally for the period for which the meter has remained defective.(3) The petition was filed alleging meter having gone defective in the month of August, 1991 and seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act consistently with the arbitration clause contained in the agreement for adjudicating upon the correctness of the bill for the month of August, 1991. During the pendency of the petition bills for the subsequent months up to 7.5.92 hav...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan Swarop Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)38; 1995(35)DRJ226
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) On 27th May 1971 the Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer with Delhi Development Authority ( for short 'DDA'). The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 29th October 1980 when he was a diploma holder. The Petitioner, however, acquired the degree in Electrical Engineering in June, 1984. The next promotional post in the cadre is that of Executive Engineer (Electrical). The Petitioner claims that on 29th October 1988 having completed 8 years service as Assistant Engineer he became eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Electrical). In 1989 Dda constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee but the case of the Petitioner was not considered and on the contrary it recommended persons junior to the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. On the recommendations of Dpc the Dda on 24th October 1989 promoted Ram Avtar Sharma. Admittedly, in the feeding cadre of Assistant Engineers (Electrica...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Steel Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT604TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-appeal dated 11-6-1985 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts of this case giving rise to this appeal are as follows.The appellants were manufacturing flats out of duty paid Steel Ingots, semifinished steel and re-rollable scrap or combination thereof. They had filed the classification list as per Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, in respect of 'flats' manufactured by them under Tariff Item No. 26AA classifying as Iron & Steel products on 2-11-1982 claiming set-off of Rs. 330/- per M.T. under Notification No. 55/80, dated 13-5-1980 as amended. The classification list had been approved by ACCE, Pune III Divn. on 22-11-1982. However, it has been alleged that the scrap generated during the manufacture of iron & steel products, was not classified by them in the classification list. The department had noticed that they had manufactured 'flats' out of duty paid steel ingots & semi-finished as well as combination of semi-fini...
Tag this Judgment!Dominion Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT320TriDel
1. The above applications arise out of the order dated 6-5-1994 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore confirming a duty demand of Rs. 35,75,075.40 against M/s. Dominion Chemical Industries on the ground inter alia that the two products in question manufactured by them viz.Flavomycin-40 and Stenorol fall for classification under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments of the Schedule to the CETA 1985 and chargeable to duty accordingly, and further imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on M/s. Dominion Chemical Industries and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on M/s. Hoechst India Ltd. 2. Shri P.D. Ghandy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Dominion Chemical Industries, submits that the products are animal feed supplements falling under Chapter sub-heading 2302.00 and are subject to nil rate of duty and are known as such in the market. They are to be fed to chicks from the day they are hatched, upto the marketing stage to improve feed efficiency. Flavomycin is fed to poultr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mohta Alloys and Steels Work
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT505TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed these two appeals against a combined Order-in-Appeal No. 1075-76/CE/CHD/91, dated 27-6-1991 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby the latter had allowed two appeals filed before her by M/s.B.D.A. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar and M/s. Mohta Alloys & Steel Works, Ludhiana who are respondents in the present proceedings and held them to be eligible for Modvat benefit in respect of Ramming mass, hot tops, nozzle setting compound and hard coke powder. Such benefit had been held to be inadmissible for the said items by the Assistant Collector, Jalandhar and Ludhiana respectively holding them to be not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products i.e. iron and steel products namely steel ingots. The said orders of the two Assistant Collectors were set aside by the Collector vide her impugned order wherein she observed that the excluded category of inputs under Rule 57A does not in...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(59)LC313Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. have filed this Miscellaneous Application stating the concluding observation contained in the order of this Bench (No. 59/95-D dated 16.2.1995) be substituted in the manner indicated by them. The particular observation which is sought to be submitted is as follows: Shri Mehta indicate at the conclusion of the hearing when we announced the operative part of this order that they would be able to establish the fact that they had not passed on the duty burden to their customer and hence they would be eligible for the refund claimed by them. Shri Mehta indicate at the conclusion of the hearing when we announced the operative part of the order that they will be able to establish before the lower authorities the fact that the proviso of undue enrichment as embodied in Section 11B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 are not attracted in their case and hence the appellants would be eligible for the refund claimed by them.2. Shri D.N. Mehta who was ...
Tag this Judgment!Dai-ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC463Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in the present appeal is the classification of the product 'Amigen' manufactured by the appellants - whether under T.I. 15AA of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff as 'Organic Surface Active Agent' as claimed by the appellants or under T.I. 15A(1) as 'Amino plast' as contended by the department.The product was earlier classified tinder T.I. 15AA with the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 208/69.2. Vide letter dated 19-11-1984, the Asstt. Collector called upon the appellants to file a revised classification under T.1.15A and the appellants were called upon to pay the differential duty amount of Rs. 25,393.73. The basis for reclassification was the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay that Amigen is in the form of a colourless liquid and an aqueous solution containing ammonia salts of organic polymer which does not have the characteristics of surface active agent; the opinion of the Chief Chemist, New Delhi that Amigen ...
Tag this Judgment!State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Chander Pal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)387; 1995CriLJ2951; 59(1995)DLT129; 1995(34)DRJ92
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) An Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi has found Chander Pal son of Siria guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has senetenced him to death. He has, thereforee, made the present reference to confirm the death sentence awarded by him under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. . Convict Chander Pal has preferred Criminal appeal No.38 of 1995 against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi. thereforee, both these matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.(2) Ramesh son of Public Witness /4 Gopal Singh resident of Inder Coony, Budan Road, District Muzaffarnagar, U.P. and his wife Suman are the victims in this case Kela, wife of appellant Chander Pal, is the real sister of Suman. Public Witness /7 Jagdiri widow of Late Prakash is the mother of said Suman and Kela. Appellant Chander Pal and Kela had in all three issues-two male issues and...
Tag this Judgment!