Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 10 of about 167 results (0.019 seconds)Raj Malhotra Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(36)DRJ22
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned letters dated 11.6.80,21.11.80, 7.2.81, 24.4.81 and 30.9.81 of the Director of Education and the letter of the Manager of the School dated 1.10.81. declining to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of P.G.T. (Hindi). (2) The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to advertisement which is at page 156 of the paper book which appeared in the Hindustan Times on 27.7.65 respondent school invited applications. Pursuant to that advertisement petitioner applied and was selected as a T.G.T. for a period of one year and subsequently she was confirmed as a T.G.T. in the scale of Rs-170-330 with effect from 1.9.66. The petitioner is a B.A.(Hons.) Hindi and M.A.(Hindi), with additional degree of Prabhakar. (3) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially the post of T.G.T, was known as 'Assistant Teacher' and her appointment at that time was governed under Delhi Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Chand JaIn Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)191; 60(1995)DLT104; 1996RLR234
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this Revision Petition assailing the order dated 20.8.1991, hereinafter referred to as the impugned order, passed by Shri D.R. Jain, Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi. The Trial Court by the impugned order decided the preliminary issue in favor of the respondent holding that the findings given by Sh. M.S. Rohilla, Sub Judge and Shri Prem Kumar Additional Rent Controller, that one Smt. Ram Kali alone was the tenant, would not operate as rest judicata and it would be open to the respondent to raise the plea of his being a tenant. (2) The revision petition raises an interesting question as to whether the rule of constructive resjudicata can be applied to an omission to raise a defense or plea, which was not available at the time of institution of the suit but became available during the pendency of the suit? (3) That for a proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the Civil Revision Petition, the facts may be recapitulated :- (i) The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Reeta Kapoor and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1995)ACC676
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 8th April, 1991 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The appellants filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts as disclosed are that deceased Ashok Kumar Kapoor was employed as Junior Engineer in DDA East Plaza Indoor Stadium, New Delhi and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1557.47. He was the only earning member of the family and used to spent almost the entire salary for the maintenance of his family which consisted of his wife, appellant No. 1, two minor children, appellant Nos. 2 and 3. The deceased was traveling on his two wheeler Lambretta Scooter No. DHD 8292 near the ITO Fly Over Bridge when the DTC Bus No. DHP 3684, being driven by respondent No. 2 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter from behind as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Collecter of Central Excise Vs. Maruthi Foam (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT157TriDel
1.1 Appellants herein are manufacturers of articles of flexible polyurethane foam. They bring duty paid polyol and isocyanide and manufacture polyurethane (pu) foam block. It is stated by the appellants that the foam block as it comes out of the plant has top-skin, bottom skin and side-skins which is not fully foamed. These various aforesaid skins have to be cut from the block before the flexible polyurethane foam block comes into existence. From the said flexible block, the respondents herein manufacture articles of polyurethane foam (cellular/flexible) which are cleared on payment of duty.1.2 P.U. block as it comes out of the plant, being liable to duty under Tariff sub-heading 3909.69 pertaining, inter alia, to "polyurethanes in primary form" is cleared without payment of duty in the factory itself for consumption in the manufacture of p.u. articles as aforesaid under exemption notification 217/86 since the final products - articles of cellular p.u. - are dutiable under Tariff sub-...
Tag this Judgment!Amber Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT355TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The order was passed with reference to a consignment imported by the appellant described as pre-mutilated synthetic rags, and weighing 40,000 kgs. net. On examination, 2528 kgs. were found to be synthetic garments cut into two pieces, 1873.60 kgs. to be serviceable (woollen) garments and 26230 kgs. improperly mutilated woollen rags. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the woollen garments absolutely. The synthetic garments weighing 2528 kgs. and improperly mutilated woollen rags were allowed to be cleared on further mutilation. He also imposed the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- on the appellant.3. Shri H.O. Arora, Advocate argued that the examination report showed 70% of the goods to be mutilated. The appellant was an actual user who would convert the goods into shoddy yarn. Reliance placed by the department on Public Notices 68/88,40/90 of the Customs House was not correct, as the Collector...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Racold Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT122TriDel
M/s. Racold Appliances Pvt. Ltd., Pimpri, Pune (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent') are the manufacturers of domestic electric appliances falling under Tariff Item 33C of Central Excise Tariff, and other item falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. In 1982, due to the budgetary changes the respondent had filed a Classification List and classified their product 'Spin dryer' under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector vide his order-in-original No. V(33C)30-5/VC/82, dated 24-9-1982 had classified the said product under Tariff Item 33C as the product has in built electrical device and the same is generally used for domestic purposes. However, he had further observed that the product 'Spin dryer' does not fall with in the Schedule appended to Notification No. 33/69, dated 1-3-1969 as amended and as such treated it as exempted from payment of Central Excise duty.However, the Appellant Collector had observed that 'Spin dryer' is nothing but washing-cum-dryer machine an...
Tag this Judgment!Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC410Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that, the appellants M/s. Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of Steel Ingots. For the manufacture of these Steel Ingots, the appellants have been using, amongst others, inputs namely, goods and materials of Chapter 73 obtained by breaking up of ships, boats and other floating structures, on which duty of excise, both basic as well as special, had been paid at the rates leviable thereon at the material time. It was the case of the Revenue that on 21-12-1990, the Preventive Staff of Chandigarh, Central Excise Collectorate, after checking the statutory records took into possession 20 gate passes against which the appellants had received Iron and Steel Waste/Scrap from M/s. Dee Kay Steel Corporation and M/s. Sonu Iron Store, Mandi, Chandigarh. Investigations made by the authorities concerned indicated that...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Brassco Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT576TriDel
1. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled for exemption in respect of the products namely, "Copper and Brass round rods, hexagonals, squares and rectangulars not less than 10mm in thickness" falling under Tariff Item 26A(1A) in terms of Notification 119/66-C.E., dated 16-7-1956, amended. In the classification list 70/81 effective from 1-6-1981, the respondents clearly mentioned that the aforesaid products are manufactured out of old scrap, copper wire bars, zinc, tin etc. The Asstt. Collector has rejected the claim of the party on the ground that Notification No.119/66 exempts copper products specified in the Notification which are made from the materials or a combination thereof listed as Items (i) to (v) of the said notification and further held that they manufactured copper and brass rods out of the raw material namely old scraps, copper wire bars, zinc, tin etc. which does not find any place in the list of raw materials to the said notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Krishan Gopal Goel and Another Vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ392
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The suit is for injunction restraining the defendant from using the word 'RANGOLI' or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' reputed trade mark RANGOLI in respect of paint. There are two plaintiffs in this suit. 1st plaintiff is carrying on business under the name and style of Rasayanshala, he being the proprietor and the second plaintiff is a Company fist plaintiff is the Managing Director. They have common interest in the subject matter. The defendant is a Company having business at Calcutta. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have put the case thus : '(4) That the plaintiff No. 1 adopted the trade mark RANGOLI in respect of 'the said goods' in the year 1987. That since April 1987 the plaintiff No. 1 has been using the trade mark RANGOLI for 'the said goods' manufactured and marketed by it. The said trade mark RANGOLI was honestly and bonafidely adopted by the plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1987 and si...
Tag this Judgment!Business Bank Vs. United Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT448
Devinder Gupta, J.(1) The plaintiff is a company having its head office in Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan at Queen Nour Street, Amman, Jordan. Suit has been filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure against United Bank of India, defendant, for recovery of Jordanian Dinnars 1,72,634 with future interest and costs.(2) It is alleged that National General Investments Company Ltd. was established during 1980 as a public shareholding company and on 23rd October, 1990 Central Bank of Jordan approved the conversion of the company into an Investment Bank called 'Business Bank'. On 3rd November, 1991 Central Bank of Jordan also approved the conversion of Business Bank (Investment Bank) to a commercial bank and the General Assembly in its extraordinary meeting held on 31st October, 1990 resolved to amend Company's Articles of Association to reflect the change of company's name to 'Business Bank'. Suit has been filed by Wasef Yacoub Azar, the Managing Director, Deputy Chairman and General M...
Tag this Judgment!