Delhi Court July 1995 Judgments

Jagatjit Industries Limited and ors. Vs. the Collector of Excise

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT559

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Collector rejecting the application for renewal of excise (L-l) license granted to the petitioner-Company under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as extended to the territory of Delhi for the wholesale vend of Indian made Foreign Liquor Products (IMFL Products) in the territory of Delhi. (2) The petitioner-Company has been supplying Imfl products in the territory of Delhi for many years. The petitioner-Company was granted a license for wholesale vend (L-l) license in the year 1991-92. Under the provisions of the Excise Laws as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case the license for wholesale vend is granted for a period of one year to be renewed annually. The license granted to the petitioners was renewed annually in the years 1993-94 and 1994-95. On 28.4.1995 the petitioner-Company submitted its application for renewal of the wholesale vend excise license for the year 1995-96 in accorda...

Maulvi Hakim Mohd. Abul Fateh Vs. the Delhi Wakf Board

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT327

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 24th November, 1976 of Additional District Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge disposed of the appeal by affirming the findings of Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi, in Suit No. 79 / 66 which was dismissed on November 30, 1972.(2) The appellant filed a suit for declaration under Section 6 of the Wakf Act to the effect that the mosque in dispute was private mosque, that it was not public Wakf but was Wakful Aulad and that as such the notification issued by the respondent/defendant, Delhi Wakf Board debarring the said property to be Wakf was of no consequence. it was alleged in the plaint that mosque bearing No. 387(new), 239(old), 220 (oldest), Hauz Qazi, Delhi was private mosque situated in the residential house of the appellant and was Wakful Aulad. The respondent contested the suit alleging that the property was a mosque and it has been notified correctly as Wakf property. The following issues were framed on the pleadings...

Signet Corporation Vs. Commissioner, M.C.D. and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Facts necessary for the disposal of this application under Sections 25/27 Consumer Protection Act are that the applicant M/s. Signet Corporation has its factory and office etc. at S-78 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi. It appears that sewerage line passes near applicant's premises. Due to faulty construction or defective repair or lack of maintenance the sewerage line gets chocked resulting in over flow of sewerage water which adversely affects the applicant. The applicant, therefore, filed a complaint before this Commission which was registered as C-160 of 1994. On notices having been given to Commissioner MCD, Zonal Engineer and Junior Engineer of the Drainage Department arrayed as Opposite Parties, appearance was entered on their behalf on 8.7.94. They were given time to file their written version. On the adjourned date the Opposite Party failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte, and the complaint was allowed. The operative part of the order...

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT707TriDel

1. These are appeals against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dated 31-3-1993.2. The learned counsel stated that the appellants were manufacturers of fertilisers. For this purpose, they imported phosphoric acid in various consignments regarding which into bonds of bills of entry were filed on 12-1-1990, 5-2-1990, 6-2-1990 and 30-1-1990. Subsequently, [they] filed five ex bonds bills of entry on 5-2-1990, 6-2-1990, 30-12-1990, 30-1-1990 and 30-1-1990 and goods were allowed to be cleared provisionally.3. Prior to the provisional assessment, the Government issued Notification No. 236/89-Cus., dated 1-9-1989 granting partial exemption to phosphoric acid used in the manufacture of fertilisers when imported from Morocco provided the importer proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector regarding the origin in accordance with the rules of origin referred to in Article 15 of the agreement on GSTP.4. On 19-12-1989 the rules for determination of origin of goods were...

Viral Laminates (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT632TriDel

1. The common issues for determination in all these appeals which are heard together and disposed of by this single order, are the eligibility of Taper based Decorative Laminated Sheets' falling under sub-heading 4823.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, to the benefit of (1) Notification No. 135/89, dated 12-5-1989 which grants concessional rate of 12% duty to goods falling under sub-heading 4823.90 other than products consisting of sheets of paper or paper board impregnated, coated or covered with plastics, compressed together in one or more operations, and (2) Notification No. 49/87, dated 1-3-1987 which grants total exemption from duty to converted types of paper and paper board falling within Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 provided they are produced out of base paper or base paper board on which Excise duty or Additional duty leviable has been paid. The benefit of Notification No.135/89 has been denied on the ground that th...

Union of India Vs. Shri Harkishan Etc.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi101

ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This is anappeal filed by the Union of India under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) against the enhancement of compensation payable to the claimant/ respondent under the award dated 8-7-1975 in LAC No. 1/1974 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, for his land at village Bahapur, Delhi, acquired for public purposes under notification dated 13-11-1959 under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. By the aforesaid notification issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, total land measuring 359 Bighas 13 bids was was acquired and the declaration under S. 6 of the Act was made on 26/27-7-1961. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the entire land into four blocks and determined the market value of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 4,500/-, Rs. 3.500/-and Rs, 2,500/ - per bigha to the land placed in the said four blocks. The entire land in dispute was placed in Block II and was assessed at Rs. 4,500/ - per bigha. On reference the Additi...

Ami Chand Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ2807

P.K. Bahri, J. 1. This appeal has been brought against judgment dated March 21, 1990 and order dated 24th August 1990 by which the appellant Ami Chand, has been convicted of offences punishable under Section, 302 I.P.C. and 324 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under the second count with the direction that substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case is initiated on the statement of complainant Harbhajan Singh, PW-4, who was also allegedly injured in the same occurrence statement made to the police, the F.I.R. was registered and in the said statement, it was disclosed that he was residing in House No. 109. Har Nagar Ashram and his friend, since now deceased, Brahm Dutt alias Brahmi aged about 16/17 years, resident of House No. 161, Hari Nagar, New Delhi was having a barber shop in Hari...

K.G. Khosla and anr. Vs. Rahul C. Kirloskar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]103CompCas984(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT405; 1995(35)DRJ124

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Winston Churchill once remarked that some see private enterprises as a predatory target to be shot others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon. But then what is to be said when what it evolves is friction, nonresponsiveness, and hostility This suit presents such a spectacle. (2) Let me first introduce the main characters. Mr. K.G. Khosla and Mr. Deepak Khosla are the plaintiffs. The first is the Chairman and the second the Managing Director of K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. (hereinafter called the Company). There are three defendants. The first is Mr.Rahul C.Kirloskar while the second is Mr.Sanjay C.Kirloskar. While the first happens to be the Managing Director, the second is the Director of Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. The third defendant is K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. (3) The plaintiffs named above instituted a suit for declaration and injunction on July 10, 1995 and Along with it was moved an application unde...

Net Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 59(1995)DLT569

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) against the determination of compensation payable to the claimant/appellant under the award dated 14.1.1980 in Lac No. 207/1975 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi for his land at Village Bahapur, Delhi, acquired for public purpose under notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (2) By the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act a total land measuring 25 bighas 14 bids was was acquired and compensation was assessed as per award No. 1294. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the entire land into 4 blocks and determined the market value at Rs. 6,000.00 , Rs. 4,500 .00 , Rs. 3,500.00 and Rs. 2,500.00 per bigha with the land placed in the aforesaid 4 blocks. The land acquired and involved in the present appeal was categorised in blocks 2 & 4 respectively. (3) On r...

Union of India Vs. Desh Raj and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ453

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by the Union of India under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) against the enhancement of compensation payable to the claimants/respondents under the award dated 22.4.1976 in Lac No.18 of 1969 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, for his land at Village Molar Band, Delhi, acquired for public purpose under notification dated 6.4.1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.(2) By the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, total land measuring 82 Bighas 8 bids was was acquired and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 15.6.1965. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the entire land into four blocks and awarded the market value at Rs.5,000.00 , RS.1000.00 , Rs.800.00 and Rs.600.00 per bigha to the land placed in the said four blocks respectively. The land in dispute was categorised in Block 'A' and land acquisition compensation was assesse...