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.
Pramod Kumar Bhandari Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)545; 1997(1)ARBLR186(Delhi); 1997CriLJ1015; 64(1996)DLT732; 1996(39)DRJ504
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 19th April 1996 issuing general search warrant in the complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 Indian Penal Code . by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.(2) The facts leading to the filing of this revision petition, shortly stated, are that petitioner Pramod Kumar Bhandari, respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar Bhandari and Mr.Vijay Kumar Bhandari are real brothers and were carrying on various businesses as partners and were also Directors/ Shareholders of private limited companies and were members of HUF; that differences arose between the three branches of the family and they jointly filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking reference of the disputes between them to arbitration, ...
Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute Vs. La ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR266]; (1998)IIILLJ1139Del
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The facts mentioned in both the petitions are interconnected. thereforee, both the aforementioned writ petitions are being disposed of by this judgment.2. In C.W.P.No. 1009/1995, the petitioner Moolchand Kharati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute, for short, the Management has preferred the writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order issued by the Labour Commissioner/Secretary Labour (Annexure-1) by which reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal:'TERMS OF REFERENCE''Whether the work-men shown in Annexure 'A' are entitled to wages for the lock-out period w.e.f. February 11, 1995 and, if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?'3. In this order, the Secretary Labour has arrived at a conclusion that lock-out has been resorted to by Management w.e.f. February 11, 1995 and prohibited the Management from continuance of lock-out forthwith in respect of the workmen of the Hospital.4. The Writ Petition No. 2454/1995 has been filed by the w...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT385TriDel
1. This appeal is filed by the department against the Order-in-Appeal No. 439/CE/CHD/92, dated 20-5-1992 whereby the refund of Rs. 30,281.49 under Section 173L was rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Bulk drugs falling under Chapters 28-29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants cleared 310 Kg. of ampicillin trihydrate on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty vide GP-I No. 4621, dated 10-8-1992 and GP-I No.4255 to 4272, dated 29-8-1989. The said goods were rejected by customers and were received by the appellant in their factory for remaking reconditioning under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules, 1944.On receipt of the material for reprocessing, the appellant filed the mandatory D-HI intimation No. 3/89, dated 29-5-1989. The goods were remade reconditioned and cleared thereafter on payment of appropriate duty Vide GP No. 1751-1788. Thereafter the appellant filed the refund claim under Rule 173L of Central Exci...
Bajaj Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT119TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 9-12-1986.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the issue involved in this appeal is the classification of a set of Printing and Tubing machines and Auto Sewing Line.The rival entries are Heading 84.59(2) (which covers, inter alia machines designed for the production of a commodity) and Heading 84.59(1) (not elsewhere specified).3. The authorities have classified Auto Sewing Lines i.e. one machine of the above set under Heading 84.59(2) and there is no dispute about it.But they have classified the other machine of the set namely the printing tubing machine under Heading 84.59(1) as 'not elsewhere specified' on the ground that it is not used for producing any "READY TO USE" commodity.4. It was their contention that the two machines together constitute a set for manufacture of cement bags. A part of the job upto the cut tubes stage is done by the printing tubing machine and the second part namely the stitching is done by t...
Fluidomat Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT551TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. fluidomat Ltd. the matter relates to the classification of the product called fluidomat fluid couplings. The appellants had sought classification of their product under Heading No.84.85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the tariff). The Department classified the goods under Heading 84.83 of the Tariff. The matter was posted for hearing on 17-10-1996. The appellants had desired that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence. On behalf of the respondents, Revenue, Shri M. Jayarmam, ld. JDR explained the special features of the product and referred to the explanatory notes to the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature.Section XVI Heading No. 84.63 wherein variable speed fluid couplings have been explained as the rotating vanes of the driving element which throw the fluid against fixed or movable vanes of the driven element.They have been included in the description of gear boxes and other variable speed gears. ...
Allied Bitumen Complex (India) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT374TriDel
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have agitated the findings of the ld. Collector, Central Excise in his order-in-original. The main issues decided by the ld. Collector pertained to the availability of the benefit of Notification No. 8(9)/55-C.E., dated 31-12-1955 as amended by Notification No. 37/60-C.E., dated 12-3-1960 and 35/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 and held that Notifications were conditional and the conditions were not fulfilled by the appellants, therefore, the benefit under the Notifications was not admissible to the appellants, whether the appellants were manufacturer of Bituminised hessian/cotton cloth paratape and parafluxal and held that they were the manufacturer.3. The third issue decided by the Collector was whether the extended period of 5 years under proviso to Section 11 A was applicable and held that it was applicable.5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of duty paid bitumen to various grade of Blown Bitu...
Jagjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD295(Delhi)
As the order of assessment is neither erroneous nor for that matter prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Commissioner's order passed under section 263 was to be cancelled and assessing officer's order was to be restored.The order of assessment is neither erroneous nor for that matter prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The payments aggregating to Rs. 2,67,035 out of total amount of Rs. 2,10,65,787 stood covered by the exceptions provided in rule 6DD(j) read with Circular No. 220 dated 31-5-1977 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Before framing the assessment the assessing officer had duly applied his mind to the cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000, as is evident from the queries made and assessee's reply thereto supported with auditor's report and books of accounts, vouchers, stock register, etc., produced in the course of assessment proceedings, as specifically recorded in order-sheet dated 22-3-1994. There is no material on record, which could enable the Commission...
Jamila Begum Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ641
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. The petitioner is questioning an order of detention under the COFEPOSA dated 4-12-1992 passed by the Administrator, National Capital, Territory. The order was served on the petitioner on 27-9-1995 while in judicial custody, she having surrendered on 26-9-1995. She was on parole from 21-6-1996 and surrendered again on 10-9-1996. The 1st respondent is the Union of India, while the 2nd respondent is the Lt. Governor. The Jail Superintendent is the 3rd respondent. 2. The case of the respondents in the grounds of detention is that the petitioner was booked for going to Dubai via Muscat on 8-6-1992 by Gulf Airways, that petitioner when asked, if she was carrying any Indian and foreign currencies replied in the negative, that she passed the Customs and at the stage of security check, she was intercepted. The checked-in baggage was inspected and 3 packages of tea, which were unusually heavy were recovered, and they contained Indian and foreign currencies worth Rs. 11...
Ashok Ohri Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR181(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT700
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) Disputes and differences having arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the said disputes were referred for the decision of respondent No. 2 in terms of the Arbitration Clause. The Arbitrator appointed admittedly is a technical person. The Arbitrator entered into the references on 3.7.1991 when he issued notices to the parties to file their claims. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Arbitrator made his award on 12.7.1993 and published the same. After publication of the aforesaid award, the petitioner filed a petition in this Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for filing of the arbitration agreement together with the proceedings and also the award. (2) In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, the Arbitrator filed his award Along with the records of the arbitration proceedings on receipt of which, notice was issued to the respondents asking him to file object...
Ajay Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1996
Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)425; 1997(1)ARBLR92(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT590; 2003(39)DRJ444
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The Arbitrator Mr.G.R. Hingorani made and published the award on February 17, 1989 in the matter of arbitration between the petitioner Ajay Construction Company and respondent-DDA in regard to the work, namely 'Construction of 168 Mig Houses at Bodello Pocket Cg - I'. While the petitioner prays for making the award a rule of the Court, the first respondent has filed an application, being I.A.1840/90, under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the same. The facts giving rise to this matter are as follows:- (2) The petitioner and first respondent entered into a contract with regard to the above said work. Certain disputes arose between the parties whereupon Engineer Member, Dda appointed second respondent to adjudicate the same. The following relevant dates and data are not in dispute:- 1.Date of tender - November 14, 1979. 2. Date of acceptance - February 22, 1980. 3. Date of commencement - March 2, 1980. 4. Period of completion - 12 months....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »