Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments

C.B. Sharma Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(81)ELT55(Del)

A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is a petition for bail on behalf of C. B. Sharma, a non-resident Indian, allegedly involved for offences under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. Heard. 2. Nine watches alleged to be studded with diamonds are said to have been recovered from the petitioner on 30th November, 1994, while he landed in India from Hongkong. The assertion of the petitioner is that the watches are designer and artistic having artificial diamond. He has purchase receipts with him to prove the same. The Customs authorities have not yet assessed their value though more than eight months have passed. The petitioner was also detained under COFEPOSA but the Advisory Board by its opinion dated 15.5.1995 did not approve the detention. 3. Considering all these facts and circumstances, it appears to be a fit case of grant of bail. I direct that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the sati...

Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav Alias Mukho Yadav Alias Raju V ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996CriLJ231; 60(1995)DLT391; 1995(34)DRJ360

P.K. Bhari, J.1. Virender Kumar Yadav and Mukhtiar Yadav alias Mukho Yadav alias Raju have been convicted of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his judgment dated August 28, 1991 and by subsequent order of the even date they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the first count and have been also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each on the second count. They have come up in appeal challenging their convictions and sentences.2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Ashok since deceased. PW 6 Gogan Yadav and PW 7 Rajinder had come to Delhi for earning their livelihood from the...

Chander Prakash and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)578; 59(1995)DLT618

A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) By this petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of sessions case State v.Chander Prakash & Others relating to FIR377/93, Ps Paschim Vihar, u/Secs. 498A/304B/34 Indian Penal Code from the Court of Shri G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Shri Dinesh Dayal, Special Judge.(2) It appears that the aforesaid sessions trial was allocated to a Court of Additional Sessions Judge presided over by Shri Dinesh Dayal who after framing charges recorded statements of three witnesses. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Dinesh Dayal has been transferred from that Court of Additional Sessions Judge to another Court of Special Judge in the same division. The prayer for transfer is on two grounds - firstly, that the case being part heard of the Additional Sessions Judge Shri Dinesh Dayal it has to be concluded by him, and secondly, that since three out of four material witnesses have been exami...

Kei Industries Ltd. Vs. D.E.S.U.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]85CompCas32(Delhi); 1995(34)DRJ580

Jaspal Singh, J.(1) Along with its petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner Company has also moved an application under section 41 of the Act seeking to restrain the respondent (DESU) from invoking three Bank guarantees one of which relates to Dena bank while the remaining two to Punjab National Bank. I am penning these lines in disposal of the said application.(2) First, a bird-eye view of the essential facts.(3) On November 20, 1992 the petitioner company was awarded the tender for supply of 760.2 Km of control cables of various sizes. The total value of the contract was Rs.5,31,39,956. It was to be completed by November 20, 1993. However, till August, 1994, the petitioner had supplied only 195.219 Km of cables and it attributes this delay to the respondent while the respondent puts entire blame on the petitioner. Anyhow, it does appear that time for performance of the contract was extended though, despite that it still remains unfulfilled. As would be obvious...

Amar Jeet Singh Vs. Zonal Assistant Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corp ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Mr. Amarjeet Singh filed a complaint before the District Forum-II on 9.6.95 seeking directions to the Zonal Asstt. Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation and other concerned functionaries of the MCD to ensure proper functioning of the surface drainage system of AG-1 Block of Vikaspuri, New Delhi. It was stated that for the last more than two years the drainage system had not been functioning properly resulting in unhygenic condition in the area. Repeated complaints and representations produced no result. The District Forum was requested to direct the officers concerned of MCD to carry out the necessary cleaning/maintenance of the drainage system and submit a regular monthly report to the Forum of the needful having been done for the next six months. Alongwith the complaint was filed a copy of representation made by certain residents of the area to Z AC through one Mr. Rajeev Kumar. Notice of the complaint was issued to ZAC for 26.6.95. 2. On 9.6.95, the ...

K.R. Batra Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Complainants Fiat car which was insured with the respondent for Rs. 80,000/- was stolen on 10.6.88 during the continuance of the insurance policy. On 17.2.89 the Insurance Company paid Rs. 60,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim by cheque. The complainant, however, wrote to the Insurance Company for re-opening the case and giving him Rs. 10,000/- more. The representation was rejected on 27.12.89. The present complaint was filed with District Forum on 19.10.92. The complaint was dismissed on 2 grounds : (i) that the complaint was barred by a limitation, and (ii) the complainant had accepted Rs. 60,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Dissatisfied with the order the complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. Regarding limitation, appellant who is an Advocate and argued the appeal in person relied on Miro Devi v. Union of India, III (1994) CPJ 70 (NC). It was laid down therein that where the complainant was persuading claim before Railway...

Webel Telecommunication Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT426TriDel

1. Both these appeals arise from the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. The appellants are engaged in manufacturing sophisticated vital Walkie-Talkie Sets against Industrial Licence for the use of Indian Air Force, Para-military Forces, State Police Organisations and various Government Companies and Govt.Departments. They imported Nickel Cadmium Cells, which were assessed to duty at 100% + 40% + 25% C.V. Duty + 5% special duty on C.V. Duty. The appellant filed a refund claim against the levy of Customs Duty and C.V. Duty on the ground that the imported items are to be assessed under Central Excise Tariff Heading 31(2) to be read with Notification No. 45/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 and hence C.V. Duty should be charged @15% + 5% special on C.V. Duty. As regards the levy of Customs Duty, the importer had claimed that Nickel Cadmium. Cells are being used in that product i.e. Radio Telephone Set and, therefore, these are to be treated as a part of Radio Telephone Sets t...

G.S. Auto International Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT128TriDel

1. Being dis-satisfied with the ex parte impugned Order-in-Appeal the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the case was posted for hearing by the Collector (Appeals) in his office at 11.30 A.M. But due to tyre puncture Shri T.R. Tandon, Ld. Consultant, reached his office at 11.45 A.M. and requested in writing that the case be heard in the afternoon or any other date may be fixed. This request was delivered in the office of the Collector (Appeals) at 12.55 P.M. on 24-4-1991 itself as could be seen from the photocopy of the said request dated 24-4-1991 which contained the acknowledgement of the Office of the Collector (Appeals) to the effect that it was received on 24-4-1991 at 12.55 P.M. (see page 25 of the Paper Book). In this premises he requested that the impugned order-in-appeal be set aside and the case be remanded to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. In reply Shri Dut...

K.P. Bhandari Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT115TriDel

1. The appellant herein imported a Mercedez Benz Car 200-D, 1982 Model; C.C.1988 from Bahrain and cleared it vide Bill of Entry Cash No.1838/12-11-1984. The appellant did not produce manufacturer's invoice at the time of original assessment. Assessable value was computed on the basis of manufacturer's price list that is Tour List No. 67 dated 4-1-1982 after adding the values of optional accessories. The Assistant Collector gave 25% depreciation on account of usage of the car and a further ad hoc depreciation of Rs. 800/- on account of damages found on examination of the car at the docks. The Assistant Collector further held that the price of the car mentioned in the manufacturer's price list adopted by the Department is ex-factory price and hence no trade discount at the rate of 15% is admissible on this price. The assessable value of the car was fixed at Rs. 87053/-. An appeal was filed against the Assistant Collector's order. It was contended before the Collector (Appeals) that the ...

Noble Electric Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT117TriDel

1. The captioned appeal has been directed against the order of Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-II. The Collector, Central Excise in his order dated 31-8-1983 had held as under : "I order confiscation of the goods under seizure i.e. 52 pressure cookers valued at Rs. 7,264/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rules 9(2) and 52A ibid. However, the same are allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) in lieu of confiscation within 3 months from the date of this order. I order that Central Excise duty at the rate applicable during the material period should be paid by M/s. Noble Electric Co., on the following goods under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 (as then in existence) ibid and further read with proviso to Sub-section 1 of the Section HA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : (1) 2385 pressure cookers valued at Rs. 5,26,826.60 (Annexure D-I to ...