Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 8 of about 167 results (0.012 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.G. Keshwani Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT116TriDel
1. These appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II against a common order-in-appeal dated 1-8-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The factual background is as follows : 2. The respondents, herein, manufacture various types of electrical door switches. The dispute in all these appeals, relates to the classification of electrical switches used in refrigerators and as to whether these switches are to be classified under Tariff Item 61 CET, covering electric light fittings or under Tariff Item 29A (3) covering various parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machinery, all sorts, and parts or under Tariff Item 68 for goods not elsewhere specified in the tariff. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector, Central Excise Divn. VIII, Bombay-II passed order on their classification list approving classification under Tariff Item 61 CET for the reason that the goods are marketed and used as switches used for electric light fittin...
Tag this Judgment!Akhilesh Kumar Tyagi Vs. Union of India and Athers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)207; 1996CriLJ965; 60(1995)DLT203; 1995(35)DRJ1
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. He was detained on 6th December, 1994 pursuant to a detention order dated 2nd December, 1994 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974. The matter came up before us on 28th August, 1995 when counsel for the petitioner contended that declaration issued under Section 9 of the Act was unconstitutional as it did not inform the detenu that he had right to submit a representation against the declaration, not only to the Advisory Board and Central Government but also to the declaring authority on the analogy of the Supreme Court judgment in Kamlesh kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, : 1996(53)ECC123 , rendered in the context of Section 3(1). Counsel relied upon the judgment in Charanjit Singh Gaba v. Union of India (1995) 3 AD (Delhi) 406, of Division Bench of this Court for the aforesaid purpose. The next contention was that if Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Y.L. Ahuja Vs. Institute of Applied Manpower and Research and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi415
J.B. Goel, J.(1) The Institute of Applied Manpower Research (for short IAMR) Respondent No. I herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860.(2) The petitioner is in service of IAMR since 24-8-1864 when ha had joined as a Research Assistant and at the relevant time i.e. in 1993-94 he wss holding the post of Chief Grade IT.(3) The petitioner had availed foreign assignments in United Nations Development Programme (for short UNDP) sponsored project in the Republic of Seychelles on four occasions (1) 12-12-1991 to 12-1-1992; (2) 5-4-1992 to 4-6-1992: (3) 1-9-1992 to December, 1992, and (4) from 30-7-1993 to 4-2-1994. His case is that he had proceeded to attend these assignments with the leave and permission of the Institute, Leave for first three assignments was granted but for the further assignment permission/leave was applied and was not refused. After availing this last assignment he had reported for duty on 4-2-1994 but was not allowed to resume work and the...
Tag this Judgment!Unibros Vs. All India Radio, Union of India, Dir. (Db), Ministry of In ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)37; 1995(35)DRJ90
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, a partnership firm enlisted as Class I (Building) Contractors in various departments of the Central Government including Central Public Works Department, was banned from business dealings with the Central Government in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and its attached and subordinate offices for a period of ten years with immediate effect. This was by order dated 15 June 1995. The reason for passing such an order was that the Government was of the view that the petitioner was guilty of malpractice, having deliberately and knowingly given false information and misled the department into pre-qualifying the petitioner thereby securing advantage to it. The petitioner has challenged this order and seeks a writ, order or direction for quashing the same. (2) The charge on the face of it would appear to be rather serious but as we have examined the record and heard the matter we find no basis for such a charge. (3) This is fourth petition in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Urban House Owners Welfare Association, Vs. Union of India,
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 60(1995)DLT644; 1996(37)DRJ126; 1995RLR533
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD' for short), a body constituted under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), framed Bye-laws called 'the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Determination of Rateable Value) Bye Laws, 1994'('R.V. Bye-Laws' for short) and 'the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Tax Return) Bye-Laws, 1994' (for short 'Property Tax Return Bye-Laws'), both notified by notifications dated 24 October 1994. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution have challenged the constitutional validity of these bye-laws. They also say that these bye-laws are ultra virus the Act. They, thereforee, seek declaration to that effect and also seek quashing of these bye-laws.(2) For the decision of this petition the relevant provisions of the Act would be sections 2(38), 2(47), 114, 116, 131, 481, 481A and 483. The Articles of the Constitution to which references have been made are Articles 245, 266, 270 and entries 86 a...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Singh Chadha and ors. Vs. the Director (Panchayats) A.D.M. and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)537; 63(1996)DLT367
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) Since the questions of law raised in these writ petitions are similar we propose to dispose of these three writ petitions by this common judgment. Civil Writ 4296/1993 : By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice dated 6.6.1992 issued by the Director (Panchayats)/Additional District Magistrate, Delhi under Section 36 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 read with Rule 47(a) of The Delhi Land Reforms Rules and also for quashing of the order dated 12.1.1993 passed by the Director (Panchayat) in pursuance of the aforesaid notice. The case of the petitioners in short is that they were allotted the lands by the Gaon Sabha and became lesses under the Gaon Sabha/Gaon Panchayat. The rent in respect of the aforesaid land lease out in favor of the petitioner was being depositedbypetitioners.However,subsequentlythe Gaon Sabhal Gaon Panchayat refused to accept the rent from the petitioners. On 22.1.1990 the Gaon Sabha was superseded and thereafter...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Karan Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC580
C.M. Nayar, J.1. The present appeals arise out of the Award dated May 3, 1993 passed by Shri Charanjit Jawa, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The respondents-claimants filed five claim petitions arising out of the same accident which took place on May 1, 1986. The petitions were ordered to be consolidated and were disposed of by the common Award.2. The brief facts are that on May 1, 1986 bus No. DEP-5609 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company was going on Old Rohtak Road. It was alleged that the same was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1 on account of which the accident took place and Sanjay, Gulshan Kumar, David, Ved Prakash and Mahesh Kumar died as a result of the accident.3. Respondent No. 1 was proceeded ex parte on January 5, 1987. Respondent No. 2 and appellant were earlier represented by one Lawyer Shri Rawat and respondent No. 2 later changed the Lawyer but after filing the writte...
Tag this Judgment!Concord International (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT135TriDel
1. M/s. Concord International (P) Ltd. has filed this appeal being aggrieved with the order passed by the Additional Collector Customs.The Additional Collector in his order had held as under : "11. In view of the facts and evidences discussed above, I find that the goods in question were not covered by necessary import licence OGL No. 18/85 read with Letter of Approval and approved project report in this case. I also find that the goods imported against hard currency did not undergo any manufacturing process in the zone and were exported as such to a rupee payment area. The conditions for exemption from duties as stipulated in the Customs Notification No. 339/85-Cus., dated 21-11-1985 as amended from time to time have not been complied with by the importer viz. M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd., since, these goods are found not to be in conformity with the conditions of import licence and the conditions of Customs Exemption Notification have not been complied with by the importer, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Videonix Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT463TriDel
1. These two appeals one by the Collector and the other by the assessee are against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh.2. The brief facts are as follows. The Central Excise officers on a visit to factory of M/s. Pioneer Videonix Co., the assessee found that 12 television sets were kept packed in the store-room but details had not been entered in the RG 1 register. Shri Deepak Bhatnagar, partner of the firm, in his statement, stated that four television sets were not in working order and eight were to be inspected by representatives of M/s. VCP Limited (apparently the prospective buyer). The television sets were therefore, seized and adjudication proceedings commenced. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, ordered confiscation of television sets but permitted them to be redeemed under Rule 173Q on payment of Rs. 15,000/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 10, 000/- under the same rule.In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the appellant's contention that ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Sangrur Industrial Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC1Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, has preferred this appeal against the order dt. 25-8-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The respondents, herein, imported a consignment of insulating kraft paper and epoxy dotted kraft paper and claimed exemption under Notification 20/88, dt. 1-3-1988. They produced a certificate from the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries about the requirement of the material for their use in the manufacture of power distribution transformers. The exemption was claimed against Sl. No. 6 of the Notification 20/88 which reads as "insulation kraft paper (plain or creped)".2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Gr. 2B II, New Customs House, Bombay passed an order-in-assessment, dated 17-2-1993, after hearing the respondents in the matter, holding that the first item in the Bill of Entry filed by the respondents, namely, insulating kraft paper is covered by the Notification 20/88, but the Assistant Commissioner denied the exempt...
Tag this Judgment!