Delhi Court August 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bright Food Industries Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ543
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) M/S.BRIGHT Food Industries have filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act to refer the dispute between the plaintiff as well as the defendant as per the agreement of arbitration between the two. (2) The Administrator of the defendant issued a notice inviting tenders for supply of food articles to be distributed amongst the primary school children. Plaintiff had submitted his tender on 5.6.92 for supply of fried soya nuts (sweetish). The tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted and he was informed accordingly by letter dated 25.8.92 and, thereafter, an agreement was also executed between the parties. As per the terms of the Agreement he had deposited Rs.20,000.00 and then he supplied 32,000 packets. Though the said packets were tested and found proper the defendants subsequently alleged that the articles supplied by him were adulterated and they refused to accept subsequent supplies. He is also not paid for the 32,000 packets accepted f...
Sardar Singh and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT183TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order dated 22-1-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), which upholds the order of Assistant Collector rejecting the refund of duty of Rs. 23,393/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand three hundred ninety three only).2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Law Officer of the Appellants Company submitted that they had imported a consignment consisting of 1,16,584 Pieces of tungsten discs packed in two boxes as shown in HAWB No. 906437, dated 8-12-1982 but delivery order dated 31-12-1982 was issued for only one box and accordingly, Bill of Entry No. 117, dated 1-1-1983 was filed. As per the then prevailing practice of the Customs, the Bill of Entry was assessed and duty paid on full value and quantity before examination of the goods. The Customs Officer, however, on examination found only 41,584 Pcs. as clear from the examination report on the reverse of the Bill of Entry. 75,000 Pieces of tungsten discs were short received by the appellants. Appellants refu...
National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT193TriDel
1. M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd. have filed these appeals.These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals). As the appeals being on the same issue for the determination are therefore being dealt with by this common order.Collector of Central Excise in his findings in the order-in-original had held as under : "6. (i) I confirm demand for duty to the tune of Rs. 3,47,961.84 under Rule-9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. I call upon NEI to deposit this amount of Rs. 3,47,961.84 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; (ii) I hold that NEI are liable for penal action under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the reasons already recorded. I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) on NEI under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as amended and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) under Rule 226 o...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC359Tri(Delhi)
1. This reference application has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 stating that the following question of law has arisen out of the Tribunal's Order No. A/1091/94-NRB, dated 23-12-1994 :- "Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal in allowing the Modvat Credit on the raw materials for making such packaging materials because in the instant case Duplex Board itself is not a packaging material (i.e. for torches) and in fact, Printed cartons are actually the packaging material which are manufactured from Duplex Board. Since the final product of Duplex Board is printed cartons and the same are not being manufactured by the assessee and on which no duty of excise is paid by the assessee, the Modvat credit availed by them on Duplex Board is not admissible." The prayer at the end of the affidavit of the Collector accompanying the Application is as follows :- "It is, therefore, prayed tha...
Atam Concast Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: (1996)LC143Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Atam Concast Steels (P) Ltd. have filed this application for rectification of mistake on the ground that in Trade Notice No. 38/92, dated 5-8-1992 it was clarified that restrictions under Clause 3 of the second proviso would apply only to such scrap which is generated by breaking up of Indian ships and that this Trade Notice was not taken into account by the Tribunal in regard to scrap obtained from breaking up of imported ships and thus there has been a mistake apparent in the Final Order No. A/1087/94-NB, dated 20th December, 1994 [reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 448 (Tribunal)].2. Shri Kulvinder Singh, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that Trade Notice No. 38/92, dated 5-8-1992 in para-1 had clearly stated as "The trade and all others concerned are hereby informed that the question regarding applicability of Clause 3 of the second proviso to Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986 (as amended) to the goods and material obtained from breaking up of sh...
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT651TriDel
1. The appeal has been filed by M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries along with stay petition seeking waiver of predeposit of amount in question for hearing of the appeal. The appeal has been filed by them in 4th April, 1995 wherein it had inter alia, been requested that in view of abolition of the Special Benches, the Finance Bill, 1995 (which has since become Finance Act, 1995) the appeal may be transferred to the South Regional Bench. The notice of hearing for the stay petition was sent to them by registered post on 3-7-1995, which has also been received by them vide postal acknowledgement receipt. It is seen they have submitted that their case is covered in their favour by a series of judgments. A preliminary submission was made by the departmental representative, when the matter came up for hearing on 17-5-1995 that the cases cited by the applicants/appellants were not applicable to the present case. As the issue involved is thus somewhat controversial and as the appeal is of the year ...
M/S. Jainsons Exports India Vs. Binatone Electronics Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi105
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J.1. This company appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge dated 31-3-1995 in Company Petition 93 of 1992. The appellant is the auction purchaser of the sale of the property which is located in Bombay. The sale was confirmed in favor of the appellant on 25-5-1993 for Rs. 11,10,000. But the said sale confirmation was re-opened by the learned Company Judge on the ground that the earlier order was passed as a result of misstatement of facts and by misleading of the Court. In fact, after the sale in favor of the appellant was re-opened, a fresh sale was held in which the same property fetched Rs. 55 lakhs in 1995.2. The point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Company Judge could have re-opened the matter on the ground that the Court was misled on account of misstatement of facts. The appellant contends that the Court has no such power.3. The following are the facts.M/s. Binatone Electronics Limited was ordered to be wound up by...
Chhattar Extractions Ltd. and Another Vs. Kochar Oil Mills Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi144
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants, Chattar Extractions Ltd. and its Managing Director against the order of the learned single Judge in LA. 6708/94 in Suit 1208/94. The order was passed under Order 39, Rule 1, CPC and a temporary injunction was granted in favor of the respondent-plaintiff, directing the appellant, not to manufacture, sell nor offer for sale nor advertise directly or indirectly, nor deal with oil under the trade mark 'Pakwan' or any other trade mark which is identical or deceptively similar with the plaintiffs trade mark.2. The learned single Judge, after referring to the contentions, held that prima facie plaintiff was using the trade mark 'Pakwan' for its refined oil manufacture from 1984, that the plaintiff had set out its sales figures and expenses on advertisement publicity for the years 1983-84 to 1991-92 and the figures were substantial. Invoices and letters from the customers have also been filed by the plaintiff showing its hav...
Harbh Uppal Vs. J.N. Uppal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi574
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) The appellant (defendant in the suit) appearing in person has preferred this appeal against order of the learned Single Judge in is 7126195 in Suit No. 528194. The learned Single Judge accepted the prayer of the appellant, in view of Provisions of Order 32-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and ordered that proceedings in the suit, as and when they are taken up, could be held in camera. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the other prayer of the appellant seeking to restrain the publication of the order passed in another is 3625195 in open Court. He held that the orders in is 3625195 could be pronounced in open Court and be released to the registry. The appellant bos filed this appeal against latter part of the order in is 7126195 as stated above. (2) The appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent for partition. The appellant filed his written statement. On the ground that there were scandalous and unbecoming allegations in...
Jainsons Exports India Vs. Binatone Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas802(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT688; 1995(34)DRJ657
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This company appeal is directed against the order of the learned Company Judge dated 31.3.1995 in Company Petition 93 of 1992. ' The appellant is the auction purchaser of the sale of the property which is located in Bombay. The sale was confirmed in favor of the appellant on 25.5.1993 for Rs. 11,10,000. But the said sale confirmation was reopened by the learned Company Judge on the ground that the earlier order was passed as a result of misstatement of facts and by misleading of the Court. In fact, after the sale in favor of the appellant was reopened, a fresh sale was held in which the same property fetched Rs. 55 lakhs in 1995.(2) The point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Company Judge could have reopened the matter on the ground that the Court was misled on account of misstatement of facts. The appellant contends that the Court has no such power.(3) The following are the facts.(4) M/S Binatone Electronics Limited was ordered to be wound up by...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »