Delhi Court October 1996 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.
Asha Darshan Vs. Jai Dayal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)577; 65(1997)DLT783; I(1997)DMC227; 1997(40)DRJ1
Usha Mehra, J.(1) Shri Jai Dayal filed a petition for annulment of marriage against the present petitioner Smt.Asha under Section 12(i)(b) read with Section 5(ii)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said petition the present petitioner filed an application seeking interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short H.M.Act). The Additional District Judge vide order dated 9th December,1994 while disposing of her application awarded pendente lite maintenance of Rs.1,000.00 per month from the date of her application dated 11th November,1993 and litigation expenses of Rs.2,200.00 .(2) It is against this order the petitioner has felt aggreived, inter alia, on the ground that the amount awarded is too less. The respondent husband has various businesses wherefrom he is earning Rs.18,000.00 per month. Those are M/s Gogia General Store situated in a thickly populated merchandised area of New Govind Pura, Delhi. He has also got Kerosene Oil Depot. Further he is doing the bu...
Collector of Customs Vs. Vishal Surgical Equipment
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT655TriDel
1. This revenue appeal is directed against order dated 28-3-1989 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The appellants imported Redi Vac Wound Suction apparatus. These were assessed by Customs Authorities under CTH 9018.39. The appellants claimed assessment under CTH 90.21 read with Customs Notification 311/86. In this appeal, Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal holding that the impugned goods were orthopaedic appliance and would merit classification under 90.21.3. Arguing for the revenue ld. DR submits that impugned goods are used in surgery and they can be classified only as appliance. These are only supportive for surgical operatus.5 We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The literature placed in the file indicates that: "In certain operations perfect haemostasis is impossible. This applies to orthopaedic surgery when the bone marrow is exposed or when the operation involves extensive division of mascular tissue, and also vascular surgery when the pat...
C.C.E. Vs. Ajit Cotton Ginning, P.D.S.R.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT332TriDel
1. These are 12 appeals filed by the Revenue against the common impugned orders dated 28-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. When these matters were posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri Y.R. Kilania, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that there are 31 appeals filed by the Revenue against the common impugned order and out of 31 appeals, 19 appeals have come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 25-9-1996 and after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed upholding the views taken by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The issue relates to denial of Modvat credit. According to the Department, parties in all these cases have wrongly taken Modvat credit on the basis of the duty paid certificates given by M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., on their invoice-cum-challans when they were not authorised. It was the contention of the D...
Sheetal Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT218TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sheetal Engg. Works being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 7-7-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. In his order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay had held in para 4 as under :- "4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellants in their appeal petition and those made by their Consultant at the time of personal hearing. I have also gone through the order of the Assistant Collector, appealed against. I find that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay's Order-in-Appeal No. M-398/AHD-136/86 ([File] No. V-2(29A) 225/84) relates to payment of refund of duty either in cash or through R.G. 23. The issue before him (Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay) was not in respect of the fact that the benefit of Notification No. 252/83-C.E. dated 1-10-1983 was not available in this case and they had paid duty correctly under Notification No. 65/83 dated 1-3-1983. The Assistant ...
Anurag Anand Vs. Sunita Anand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)37; AIR1997Delhi94; 65(1997)DLT1037; II(1996)DMC389; 1997(40)DRJ68
1. This is the husband's appeal filed against judgment and order dated 7-2-1996 passed by Shri S. M. Chopra, Additional District Judge in H.M. A. Petition No. 393/95 instituted by wife under Section 12(l)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for annulment of her marriage with the appellant by a decree of nullity. By the impugned order, the marriage between the parties has been annulled on the grounds that the consent of the respondent was obtained by fraud as to the material facts and circumstances concerning the appellant.2. The facts in brief are that the appellant and the respondent got married at Delhi on 24-7-1994 according to Hindu rites. They lived together for some time but differences arose between them which even led to lodging -of a complaint by the respondent to Dowry Cell of the Delhi Police on 14-9-94. An FIR was also lodged by the respondent against the appellant and his parents. The respondent is said to have left the company of the appellant in Augu...
Smt. Sneh JaIn Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ586
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the detenu questioning an order of detention dated 15-9-95. A large number of points have been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner on various dates. In between, the petitioner was on parole from 2-5-96 to 10-7-96, which was extended by another 10 days and again by 2 more weeks. 2. The learned counsel contended that there is unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation which, according to him, was submitted on 21-10-1995, that the detaining authority alone can decide whether remarks have to be called from the sponsoring authority, that the Law department ought not to have been consulted by the detaining authority; that there is no material on record that the detenu was intercepted by the Customs Officer at the exit gate of the arrival hall for search of the person and baggage of the detenu, that the detaining authority considered and took into account matters not relevant; that the sanction for prosecutio...
Mohar Singh Vs. Deen Dayal Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)704; 65(1997)DLT1; 2003(39)DRJ760
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Plaintiffs have come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by an order dated 22.3.96 passed by. a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the plaintiff's application (IA 3862/95) under Order 39 Rules I &2 Civil Procedure Code has been directed to be dismissed and the defendant/respondent's application under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code seeking vacating of the orders dated 5.5.95 and 22.5.95 has been allowed. (2) Vide is No.3862/95, the plaintiffs had sought for the following reliefs :- 'A)Restrain the defendants from in any manner using the properties, goodwill and name of the partnership firm Shri Giriraj Trading Company and carrying on similar business in the firm's name Shri Giriraj Trading Company. b) Restrain the defendants from in any manner, selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise disposing of the assets of the partnership firm Shri Giriraj Trading Company. c) Appoint a receiver with respect to the assets and properties of the firms with the direct...
Ravi Shankar Garg Vs. Delhi Development Auhority and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT102
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th July, 1994 cancelling public auction of certain plots bearing No. B-7/106-A, No. B-5/1A situated in Safdarjung Enclave and B-104, B-105, B-106 East of Kailash, New Delhi. He has also sought writ quashing the provisions of Section 41(3) of Delhi Development Authority Act (hereinafter called the 'DDA Act'), the provision allegedly being ultra virus of the Constitution. The petitioner further seeks that directions be issued restraining allotment and handing over of possession of the said plots, particularly, plot No. B-7/106A Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to respondent No. 4 Smt. Saraswati Devi. (2) According to the petitioner Dda issued a public notice for auction of residential plots on 8th, 10th and 11th August, 1994 vide Annexure 'A'. The petitioner being interested in purchasing the residential plots in East of Kailash and in Safdarjung Enclave went to the office of Dda in the last week of July, 1994 in order to co...
Chander Kanta Singhal Etc. Vs. Kapadia Exports and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-11-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)108; 65(1997)DLT926; (1997)115PLR56
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The plaintiffs who filed two separate suits on 1.2.90 for possession and mesne profits for use and occupation in respect of ground floor, 1st and 2nd floors of the property bearing No. 94, Malcha Marg. Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit accommodation') are the appellants. Ground floor of the said building, subject matter of Rfa No. 357/95, was let out to the defendant firm at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000.00 and first and 2nd floor whereof, subject matter of Rfa No. 359/95, was let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000.00. By mean soft wonotices dated 2.11.89, thedefendant's tenancies were terminated but despite service of the said notices, the defendant did not vacate the suit accommodation. The suits were resisted on the grounds that: (a) the plaintiffs arc not the owners of the suit accommodation and as such they had no right to serve quit notice dated 2.11.89; (b) the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs had ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT187TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal against order dated 23-4-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The dispute relates to the denial of Modvat credit on inputs hydrochloric acid, ferric alum, and activated carbon. The respondents manufacture soap falling under Sub-heading 3401.10 Central Excises and Salt Act, 1985. The process of manufacture of soap is that fat/oil is subjected to the process of alkalisation by reaction with alkali i.e. caustic soda lye, when crude fatty acid and sweet water are obtained. Thereafter crude fatty acid is further used for manufacture of soap. Sweet water which is not used for the manufacture of soap is separated for manufacture glycerine, for which purpose the sweet water containing glycerine in impure form is treated with hydrochloric acid and ferric alum to obtain glycerine. After further treatment with activated carbon refined glycerine is produced.The Department has disallowed Mod...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »