Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments

Bhushan Alloys and Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT426TriDel

1. The captioned two Appeals are taken together as they arise out of the same order and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts in brief of the case are that M/s. Bhushan Alloys and Steels Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products.On 11-12-1992, the Central Excise Officers intercepted a Truck No.HR -0l-B-2474 loaded with iron and steel ingots near Railway Station at Mandi Gobindgarh. On demand, the driver of the truck produced Bill No.1045 dated 10-12-1992 of M/s. Archana Steel Works, Chandigarh. On an enquiry, the truck driver stated that he had loaded the ingots from the factory premises of M/s. Bhushan Industries, Chandigarh and left Chandigarh in the morning for Mandi Gobindgarh. He further submitted that he did not have any other document except the Bill. The Central Excise Officers alleged that the iron ingots weighing 14.880 MT were clandestinely removed by M/s. Bhushan Alloys and Steels. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. B...

Borachem Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT216TriDel

1. M/s. Borachem Industries Pvt. Limited have filed this misc.application dated 17-6-1995 for transfer of their appeal to the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal as that place is very convenient to them and economical as theirs is a SSI unit.2. We are unable to accede to the request of the applicants for transfer of this appeal as well as the connected departmental appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune which is registered as E/2000/87-C to the Bombay Bench as the arrangements for receiving appeals relating to classification and valuation matters by that Bench on transfer from the erstwhile Special Benches in Delhi have not been completed and it is administratively not feasible to order such transfer. In the circumstances, we reject their application and adjourn the appeals to 27-10-1995....

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)709; 1995(34)DRJ601

M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.1993 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in appeal No.E/4262/91-C and also against the order dated 14.8.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. By the order dated 10.9.1993 the Tribunal directed the petitioners to deposit the duty demand of Rs.60 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.8.1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise imposing on the petitioners a demand of Rs-96,94,400.95 as basic excise duty and Rs-2,73,313.42 as special excise duty totaling to Rs-99,67,808.92 and also a personal penalty of Rs.20 lacs only. (2) The petitioners are a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of various .Chemicals in their factory 'Daurala Sugar Works', (Chemicals Division) Daurala, District Meerut. The petitioners are regular Centra...

Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Revathi Iyer

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. District Forum-II disposed of six complaints by a common order recorded in Complaint Case No. 1563/93 Pushpa Raju v. M/s. Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Smt. Bhavani S. Iyer, Managing Director. Against that order these appeals (A-158/95 M/s. Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Ms. Revathi Iyer, A-160/95 M/ s. Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Indira Gupta, A-162/95 M/s. Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Mrs. Rukmini Gopal and A-163/95 M/s. Sambhavana Builders P. Ltd. and Ors. v. M/s. Pushpa Raju) have been filed. As the questions raised are common, these appeals are being disposed of by this order. 2. The appellants floated a scheme for construction of residential flats on a piece of land in village Mehrauli. The land has been purchased by the appellant by direct purchase from the owners. Two types of flats numbering 75 were to be constructed. The public was invited to enrol. The complainants enrolled for buying those flats and deposited va...

Hindustan Coir Products Ltd. Vs. Coll. of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT263TriDel

1. Though it is only the stay petition which has been posted for hearing today, we find on hearing the preliminary submissions of the Learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri J.S. Agarwal that there has been denial of natural justice. We are inclined to take up the appeal itself for disposal at one go.2. Shri A.K. Madan, the Learned Departmental Representative was initially not inclined to accept the proposition that there was denial of natural justice, but he agreed to have the appeal itself disposed of.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal explained that the show cause notice was not served on the appellants. The department has contended that a copy of the show cause notice was pasted in their premises. He further pointed out that they were not in occupation of the premises in question.Another firm had moved in there and they did not get news of notice having been pasted there. The copy of the impugned adjudication order was received by them at the residential premises of the Director of the company. O...

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. C.L. Anand and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1996]87CompCas218(Delhi); 60(1995)DLT111

Jaspal Singh J. 1. This petition under section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, is proving to be quite thorny. It has witnessed a lot of fire-works even on the question as to whether I should frame issues or not and that if I should, what those issues should be. And, as if all this was not enough, they expect me to pass a speaking order too.2. As we all know, issues are framed to shorten the arena of dispute and to ascertain and pinpoint where the two sides differ so that no party to the suit is taken by surprise. Since the court should not determine an issue which does not arise on the pleadings, it is essential for the right decision of a case that appropriate issues are framed. The general principle of law seems to be that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and that there must be a distinct issue for each material proposition of law or fact affirmed by one party and denied by the ot...

P.D. JaIn Vs. Oswal Agro Mills and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ77

(1) This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the appellant Along with Cm 588 of 1990 to permit the appellant to file an appeal as an indigent person. This application has been filed under Order 33 rules 2 and 3 CPC. The appellant is the defendant and the order under appeal is a decree in suit in the sum of Us $ 52,37,284.54. The appeal is against the decree dated May 9,1989 passed in is 5119/1987 etc. and in Suit No.1917 of 1986 and in Omp 28 of 1987. The suit was filed by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. against the appellant and others claiming a decree for Rs.3,83,86,288.95 with interest thereon @ 18%. (2) The suit ended in a decree for the amount of Us $ 52,37,284.54 with interest and costs. The appeal has been preferred by the first appellant against the said decree and on the ground that the appellant is not able to afford court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal,this application has been filed under Order 33 rules 2 and 3 CPC. (3) Notice was ordered on 24.5.90 and the respondent appear...

Mahipal @ Leelu Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)167; 59(1995)DLT660; 1995(35)DRJ327

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner by this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ for quashing the order of detention dated 26th Sept., 1994 passed by Commissioner of Police, respondent No.2 herein, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The petition has assailed the order of detention dated 26.9.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) inter alias on the ground that the grounds of detention are essentially the same as those of earlier detention order dated 10.7.1992 and 29.10.1992, which were revoked. It is also urged that the grounds of detention are state and have no live link with the order of detention. (3) For a proper appreciation of the petition's contentions, let the facts in brief based on the pleadings and record be noted. These are as under : (I)The po...

Rameshwar Dayal and ors. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 60(1995)DLT168

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge passed in reference under Section 18 of the Act. The land belongs to village Peepalthala. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13 November, 1959 and declaration under Section 6 on 22 November, 1962. Award in this case was made on 22 April, 1963. The appellants claim to be the 1 / 3rd owners of the land in question. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal says he is not aware as to what happened regarding the 2/3rd remaining land in question as to whether any owner thereof filed any similar appeal or not.(2) The Land Acquisition Collector bifurcated the land into two blocks 'A' and 'B' and assessed the market value at Rs. 1,500.00 and Rs. 1,000.00 per bigha respectively. For gardens in block 'A' compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per bigha and for gardens in block 'B' at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per bigha...

Mitter SaIn JaIn Vs. Attar SaIn JaIn and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)832; 1995(35)DRJ262

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Plaintiff is the appellant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing his suit for recovery of vacant possession of premises bearing No. 1203, Chah Rahat, Bazar Gulian, Delhi-110006 and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. (2) The suit was based on landlord-tenant relationship. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are real brothers. Defendants 2 and 3 are respectively the wife and the son of defendant No.1. 2.1On 7.7.1959, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had purchased properties No. 1158 to 1212 situated at Chah Rahat Bazar Guliyan Delhi-110006. The suit property is one out of those several properties. It is a garage. It was held on rent of Rs. 11.50 per month by one M.M. Khanna. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the co-owners had filed an eviction petition against the tenant. On 20.3.1962, a family partition took place wherein the joint properties were partitioned and the suit premises fell to the share of the plainti...