Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 13 of about 155 results (0.013 seconds)Asha Jyoti Spg. Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT426TriDel
1. This is an application by the appellants for out of turn hearing inter alia on the ground that the subject goods, namely, yarn manufactured out of synthetic waste are lying in the custody of the Department for the last 61/2 years and the same are deteriorating day by day. Shri Mohan Lal, Ld. JDR has no objection....
Tag this Judgment!South Delhi Citizens Forum and Others Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi155
ORDERMahinder Narain, J. 1. C. M.4005/ 95.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM. 4004/95.2. A public interest writ petition was decided by an order of the Division Bench of his Court comprising B. N. Kirpal and Arun Madan, JJ., on 29 October, 1993.3. That writ petition was numbered as C.W.P. 1924 of 1993 and has been filed by South Delhi Citizens Forum, inter alia, stating that despite acquisition of land measuring 316.9 acres in Kilokari, Khizrabad and Okhla, which was very valuable land, large scale encroachments have taken place which were not being removed by the D.D. A.or by the police.4. By the order dated 29 October, 1993, the writ petition was disposed of and direction was given to remove the encroachment in accordance with law.5. The applicant has now filed an application for intervention in the said decided writ petition asserting that he filed earlier a writ petition, and that his writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (R.C. Lahoti and A. K. Sr...
Tag this Judgment!Noor Jahan Vs. Union of India, Secretary, Government of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ214
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner by this writ petition, Filed through her brother Mohd. Aslam under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenges the order of detention dated 29th September, 1994 bearing F.No.673/168/94- CUS.VIII passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA') and prays for being released from detention forthwith.(2) The petitioner was arrested on 30.11.1994 in pursuance to the detention order dated 29.9.1994 served on her. The facts and grounds leading to the order of detention are set out in detail in the detention order, which may be briefly stated as under: (I)On 13.8.1994 two persons, viz., Sudhir Kapoor and Kamal Kapoor were apprehended at Sahar International Airport, Bombay, while leaving for Singapore. The search of the person of Sudhir Kapoor resulted in the recovery of D.M. 14,00...
Tag this Judgment!Gufic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT67TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra in which he has held that both the appellants wrongly availed of the benefit of Notifications 85-C.E. and 175/86-C.E.on account of their having interest in the business of each other and being financially involved with each other. He also demanded duty from M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd and imposed penalty on each of them. He further Ordered confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery of both the companies but permitted them to be redeemed on payment of fine. We have heard the arguments forcefully advanced by the Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant companies and the rebuttal of the Departmental Representative.2. The effect of the Collector's Order is to hold that M/s. Gufic Pharma (P) Ltd., Bharuch is the real unit and M/s. Gufic Pvt. Ltd. is an artificial entity created to unlawfully avail the benefit of the Notification.3. The demand is for a period from 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1989 and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Ranutrol Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT241TriDel
1. M/s. Ranutrol Ltd. of New Delhi have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Customs.The Collector of Customs in his Order-in-Original had held : "I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1.962. However, I allow the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Assessable value of the subject consignment shall be worked as shown in the Annexure to this order. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). Option to redeem the goods should be exercised within a month. Penalty shall be paid forthwith." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Bill of Entry on 31-10-1990 declaring the goods as component parts of Expansion Valve and component parts of Dial Thermometers. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs. 4,99,209.00 c.i.f. The importers also claimed clearance of the goods under OGL...
Tag this Judgment!Gajra Beval Gears Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT82TriDel
1. M/s. Gajra Beval Gears Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Customs, Bombay. The Collector, Customs in his order had held as under : "10. In view of the evidence analysed above I order that two numbers second hand Spline Milling Machine model KF 32 A with standard accessories imported by M/s. Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. are liable for confiscation under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 as they have been imported without a valid import licence. In view of the fact that contravention of the ITC Regulations in importing the machine without a valid import licence is technical as discussed earlier in this order and that the importers are the actual users, I allow redemption of the said two machines on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) for each of said machines. The total amount of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) shall be paid for both the machines." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kakkar Complex Steels Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT417TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal on the ground that Collector (Appeals) had wrongly held that modvat credit was admissible on oxygen and acetylene gas used for carbonising inside of the moulds to get good finish for steel ingots and that such moulds by themselves are apparatus/equipment used for making steel ingots.2. The facts in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and were availing modvat credit in terms of Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended; that during the period from April, 1986 to October, 1987, they took credit of duty paid on oxygen and acetylene gas, ingots, moulds, ceramic and refractory and other inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise confirmed the demand on account of modvat credit taken on oxygen, acetylene gas, ingots, moulds, ceramics and refractory. The Collector (Appeals) held that the credit was not admissible on ingot m...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Raj Rani and Others Vs. Banwari Lal and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC364; 1996ACJ175
ORDERC. M. Navar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the award dated August 27, 1979 of Shri Mahendra Pal, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants had filed claim petition for award of compensation of Rs. one lakh under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of Daya Kishan Dass in an accident which took place on March 18, 1971 at about 5 p.m. near Maurice Nagar Crossing in front of Ramjas College, within the jurisdiction of P. S. Roshanara Road. The appellants are the widow, three children (minor at the time of accident) and mother of the deceased.2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was going on cycle from the side of Roop Nagar towards Old Secretariat via Maurice Nagar and was on his correct left side of the road. The offending truck bearing No. DLL-3761 driven by respondent No. 1 came from behind and knocked down the deceased causing serious injuries. The deceased was removed from the site of occurrence in unconscious state ...
Tag this Judgment!The Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited Vs. Majestic A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1995Delhi373; [1999]96CompCas937(Delhi)
ORDER1. This is a petition by Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (herein referred to as the Corporation) under Sections 446 and 537 of Companies Act for leave to sell the property, which is stated to be constituting security of Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation. The facts, as stated in the petition, are as under:-- That the petitioner Corporation had sanctioned in ail five loans, aggregating to an amount of Rs. 30,60,000/- to the company in liquidation between November, 1983 and October, 1985. Under the said loans, a sum of Rs. 29,65,040/- was actually disbursed to the company in liquidation. It is further alleged that the aforesaid loans were secured, inter alia, by equitable mortgage of land and building situated at B-12, Sector-VIII, Noida and by hypothecation of plant and machinery. On company in liquidation committing several defaults in repayment of the said loans, the petitioner corporation served a notice on the company in liquidation on or about 9th November, 1987 calling u...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Consortium Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Trading Corporation ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)334; 1995(2)ARBLR242(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT273
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Universal Consortium Engineers Pvt Ltd, the petitioner had submitted a tender to the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. for construction of a multi storey building known as Stc Building Complex (Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan) at Tolstoy Marg. The tender was accepted by the respondent. A contract dated 23.7.1980 was finalised and entered into between the parties. The contract contained an arbitration clause. The relevant part thereof provided as under: - 'ARBITRATION of Managing Director, STC. If any dispute, question or controversy, the settlement of which is not herein specifically approved for, shall at any time arise between the Stc and the contractor relating to this contract or any clause or thing contained or the construction thereof or any matter connected with this contract or the portion of the same or the rights or duties or liabilities of either party then in every such case, the matter in dispute shall be referred to the arbitration of the Managing Director...
Tag this Judgment!