Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 6 of about 167 results (0.014 seconds)Rattan Chand JaIn Vs. Uberoi Limited and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi117; [1998]93CompCas906(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 18, 1981, passed by the learned company judge in C.A. No. 647 of 1979, reviewing his earlier order dated October 24, 1979, made in C.A. No. 318 of 1979 and giving certain directions. The appeal is preferred by one Shri Rattan Chand Jain, who claims to be a majority shareholder along with other shareholders of his group (hereinafter referred to as the Jain group), in Uberoi Ltd., a public limited company. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 are the other shareholders of the company; respondents Nos. 2 to 8 being the members and friends of the Uberoi group, respondent No. 9 is one Shri O. P. Taneja and respondents Nos. 10 and 11 are S/Shri R. P. Jaggi and D. L. Jaggi respectively, the two main members of the Jaggi group. 2. To understand and appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal it will be necessary to recapitulate some material facts. 3. Uberoi Ltd., respondent No. 1, was incorporated some time in the year 1913 w...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Jindal Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)273; 60(1995)DLT516; 1995(35)DRJ598; (1996)112PLR3
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the restriction contained in the Flag Code-India relating to flying of the National Flag by private citizens and seeks to have the same quashed being illegal and invalid with a further prayer restraining the respondents from interfering with his right to fly the National Flag on his premises in a respectful manner.(2) Petitioner has done his M.B.A. from the U.S.A. and is presently working as a Joint Managing Director of Jindal Strips Limited, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner says he has been looking after the factory of this company at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh. He started flying the National Flag at his office premises. To his rude shock he was told by certain Government officials of the State of Madhya Pradesh that flying of the National Flag by an ordinary citizen was not permitted under the law and was an offence and that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Gurpawan Kumar Vs. S.P. Jakhanwat
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)138; 60(1995)DLT347; 1996(36)DRJ29
Vijender Jain, J. (1) This order will dispose of Civil Contempt Petition Nos.82, 64, f)7, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, {W, 89, 90, 9i, 92, 93, 94, 95, 95, 97, 98, 136, 137, 138, 139, ]40, 141, 142, 143 of 1994, which are similar in nature. (2) These petitions for contempt have been filed by the petitioners on account of non-allotment of a plot of 250 sq.yds. alleging that respondents were bound to allot to the petitioner said si/.e of plot in view of the order made by the Division Bench of this Court on September 27, 1993. The said order is as follows I - 'for the reasons stated in the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Civil Writ No.623/91 (Rama Nand v. Union of India & ors.) given on 30th July, 1993 and also in the decisions in Sanwal Singh v. UOl & ors. (Civil Writ No-3172/91), dated 13th September, 1993 this writ petition is disposed of in similar terms. If any person wants change of plot within the same zone or a bigger plot as per the recommendations of the Delhi Administration, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lintech Electronics (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Marvel Engineering Co. and a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ11
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 26th May, 1995 while issuing summons to the defendants, the plaintiffs' application for an order of injunction was considered. Defendants were restrained by an ex parte order from interfering, selling or offering for sale to any party in India, Steam Leak Detection Equipment, which might be similar in technical specifications to the plaintiff's Acoustic Steam Leak Detection System registered under Indian Patent No.162647. Defendant has now applied for vacation of the order of injunction. I heard learned counsel for the parties at length, after notice of application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been given to the plaintiffs. (2) PLAINTIFFS' case is that plaintiff No.1 company is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and installation of highly sophisticated automatic steam leak detection equipment and is also the exclusive licensee of Indian Patent No.162647 dated 12th February, 1985, which is equivalent to European Patent No.0108556, ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Parivahan Mazdoor Sangh and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. a ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT352; (1996)ILLJ1170Del
Vijender Jain, J. (1) Petitioner has filed the present petition aggrieved by the order of the respondents declining to refer the industrial disputes for adjudication. Respondent-Delhi Administration vide its letter dated 10.10.74 declined to refer the disputes for adjudication on the ground that Lt. Governor of Union Territory of Delhi does not consider the disputes fit for reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication that:- '(1)The disputes regarding reduction of hours of works was previously rejected by the Tribunal and there does not appear to be any change in circumstances requiring a reference once again. (2) Creation of posts of promotion is a function of management depending upon the need for such posts and other factors. The management has however been advised to examine the possibility of providing promotion in other Cadres.'(2) Mr. Charya, learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the appropriate Government, i.e., Delhi Administration has decided upon the m...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT521TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by M/s. Vimal Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh, Chandigarh, against the two separate orders-in-appeal of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chan- digarh; one dated 30-5-1991 and the other dated 31-5-1991. Under her order dated 31-5-1991, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had disposed of three appeals by a common order. As in all the three appeals common issues relating to the Modvat credit are involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellant had received re-rollable material, defective steel ingots, blooms, cut ends, etc. (inputs), and used them in the manufacture of steel ingots and steel castings (final product), through the process of melting. In their declaration, the inputs were described as melting scrap. The inputs were not received directly from the manufacturers but were received under the cover of endorsed gate passes through third parties. In some cases, these third parties h...
Tag this Judgment!Jaypee Forges Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT49TriDel
1. M/s. Jaypee Forge have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order had held that the classification of the subject goods has been done correctly by the Assistant Collector. The Asstt. Collector in his order had held that "In view of the foregoing discussions, I classify these forgings and forged products as motor-vehicle parts under Chapter sub-heading 8708.00 of the CETA, 1985." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of forgings and forged articles and claimed classification of their products under Chapter sub-heading No. 7224.00 in their classification lists w.e.f. 13-5-1988, 1-3-1989 and 20-3-1989.Later on the appellants claimed classification of these products under Chapter sub-heading 7326.90. However, the department was of the view that these forgings had already attained essential character of finished products ...
Tag this Judgment!Chowgule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT680TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-Appeal No. 5/93, dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, who by his order dropped the proceedings initiated by the issue of L.C. Demand Notice dated 28-1-1987. The Asstt. Collector has held that Bill of Entry 280/31-10-1986 was correctly assessed to nil rate of duty by the Customs Department in terms of Notification No. 262/58, dated 11-10-1958 in respect of imported one bulk-carrier vessel M.V. MARATHA DEEP in Oct., 19"86 by the importer appellants herein. The facts of the case are that the said bulk carrier was imported by the appellants having been purchased from M/s. Bravo Enterprises Ind. Ltd., Liberia.The said vessel arrived in Visakhapatnam from Australia carrying a bulk consignment of 27,000 M.Ts. of Cocking Coal. The vessel discharged part of cargo (15,000 M.Ts.) at Visakhapatnam and left for Haldia to discharge the balance cargo of ...
Tag this Judgment!Surgical Electronics and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)119; 60(1995)DLT359
Cyriac Joseph, J.(1) This writ petition relates to the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Government of India's Scheme of Assistance to Disabled Persons for purchase/fitting of aids/appliances (for short, 'the Adip Scheme') by the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, Kanpur (Respondent No. 2). The petitioners are two 'Implementing Agencies' nominated by Respondent No. 2. They pray for the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) to implement an order stated to have been passed on 19.4.1991 by the Minister of State for Welfare and also to restrain Respondent No. 1 from getting the Adip Scheme implemented through Respondent No. 2 and from giving any grant/financial aid to Respondent No. 2 under the said Scheme. (2) The petitioners have produced a copy of the Adip Scheme. The main objective of this Scheme was to assist needy physically handicapped persons in procuring durable,...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Heart Instt. Res. Centre Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT550TriDel
1. This is an application for stay of duty demand Rs. 3,30,38,532.00 on finalisation of earlier provisional assessments by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi in his order dated 17-6-1994, which has been upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), IGI Airport, New Customs House, New Delhi in the impugned order dated 31-3-1995.2. Shri A. Hidayatullah, Sr. Counsel, appeared for the applicants alongwith Sh. L.P. Asthana, ld. Consultant and Ld. Counsels Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi and Ms. Urmil Narang. The ld. counsel submitted that applicants are engaged in research in the field of cardiac and cardio-vascular research. They imported 29 consignments of medical and other instruments for research claiming exemption under Notification 70/81-Cus., dated 26-3-1981 and Notification 321 /87-Cus., dated 21-9-1981. They had also submitted certificates as required therein to the effect that the goods imported are essential for research and that the applicants are not engaged in any co...
Tag this Judgment!