Delhi Court November 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.
Raj Pal Cloth House Vs. Fancy Textiles (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: 66(1997)DLT842; 1997(41)DRJ348; 1997RLR411
S.N. Kapoor, J.(1) This Revision Petition is directed against an order passed on the application under Order 38 Rule 5 and under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code . directing the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for the amount claimed in the suit. (2) Brief facts giving an occasion to the present revision petition, are as under :- According to the case of the plaintiff/respondent, the plaintiff supplied goods to the petitioners/defendant from time to time. The petitioners failed to clear the account despite the repeated requests. Moreover, the cheques issued by the defendants were also dishonoured on presentation for realisation. Whenever plaintiff visited the shop premises, it was found closed. Enquiries from neighbour further revealed that the defendants were planning to close down the premises. Through reliable sources, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the defendants/petitioners were closing down their business by selling the cloth on a very low price. Appre...
Surender Sethi Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT813
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed on 20th October, 1995 and the Court had directed the same to be listed on 3rd January, 1996 for recording of pre-summoning evidence. However, it appears that the evidence could not be recorded on 3rd January, 1996 or thereafter and finally the case was listed on 24th October, 1996 for recording he pre-summoning evidence. On 24h October, 1996, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was, thereforee, put up before the Link Magistrate who adjourned the same to 3rd February, 1997 for recording of the pre-summoning evidence. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this petition for pre-poning the date of hearing before the Metropolitan Magistrate. (2) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that by an order passed on 16th August, 1996 this Court in Dutt Enterprises Limited v. State, : 64(1996)DLT815 , 'had given direction...
Asia Engineering Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT66TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 30th May, 1989, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported smoke detectors (Sensor) and claimed assessment under Chapter 9027.80 instead of Heading 8531.10 of the Customs Tariff. The Learned Collector rejected the plea for classification under 90.27. Sub-heading 9027.80 inter alia, covers other instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking the quantities of heat; while sub-heading 85.31 deals with electric sound or visual signalling apparatus (for example, bells, sirens, indicator panels, burglar or fire alarms). It was pleaded before the Collector by the appellants that the Explanatory notes under Heading 85.31 appearing at page 1383 rules out for fire alarms incorporating smoke detectors containing a radio active surface (Heading 90.22) since the smoke detector imported by the appellant contains a radio active source. It was pleaded that the classification under 85.31 was ruled out in ter...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. 3-f International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT509TriDel
1. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that on 1-7-1989 when the Central Excise officers visited their factory they were engaged in the manufacture of PU Foam Sheet. For the manufacture of PU Foam Sheet the respondents were procuring various raw materials and were availing Modvat credit. The ld. Counsel submits that the goods manufactured by the respondents were not in fully finished form inasmuch as they had yet to be subjected to double bonding; that during that period their machine which was used for double bonding was not working; that the semi-manufactured stage of the product was evident from the fact that at the ends of PU Foam Sheet there was 20 meters of poplin cloth which is normally taken away before the goods are treated manufactured. The ld. Counsel submits that the practice in the trade by manufacturers of PU Foam Sheet was to take away poplin cloth from the ends to measure it and to fold it before it was recorded in RG 1 register. The ld. Counse...
Somaiya Organics (India) Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT650TriDel
1. M/s. Somaiya Organics (India) Limited have filed this reference application stating that the following questions of law have arisen out of the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/555/96-NB, dated 22-2-1996 which require to be referred to the High Court under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 for their advice:- (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order of the Tribunal is correct in law? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in denying money credit on Ethyl Alcohol on proportionate basis used in the manufacture of specified final products to the extent of quantity with Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde cleared? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in denying money credit on the Ethyl Alcohol when Solvent 75 and Paraldehyde emerging in the process after such Ethyl Alcohol is used in the manufacture of the specified final product? (4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Solvent 75 can be treate...
Sagir Ahmed Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)1122; 1997(43)DRJ794
Jaspal Singh, J.(1) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He has preferred this appeal from jail and is not represented by a counsel.(2) I would have in the first flush appointed a counsel at State expense to represent him but since, after having gone through the record, I do feel that the appellant needs to be given benefit of doubt, the desire to save him from further agony has led me to straightaway pass this judgment.(3) The case of the prosecution is that on 8th of January, 1991 Sub Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar received secret information and on its basis formed a raiding party which led to the apprehension of the appellant and the alleged recovery of 1,800 kgs. of Charas out of which allegedly 100 grams of charas was taken out as sample. The sample so taken and the remaining charas were put into two separate parcels and were sealed not only with the seal of the Investigating Officer but also allegedly ...
Transpek Industry Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT188TriDel
1. All these appeals are directed against common Order-in-Appeal No.3155/KK-BCH dated 20-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay disposing of 24 claims. Condonation applications for delay in filing supplementary appeals are taken up and allowed.All these are taken up for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order.2. The appellants claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 7(2) under Notification No. 44/83 dated 1-3-1983 in respect of Zinc dust imported by them. This claim was rejected by Assistant Collector on the ground that Zinc powders mentioned in Sl. No. 7 covers Zinc Dust also and therefore instead of 40% duty as claimed for "others" under Sl. No. 7 (ii) they are required to pay 60% duty. This claim was upheld by the Collector (Appeals).3. Arguing for the Appellants the ld. Consultant submits that in regard to classification there is no dispute and the goods are classifiable under heading 79.03. These are classifiable however...
Muddeereswara Overseas Traders Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT644TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, though request has been sent for decision on merits.2. Appellant imported goods described in the invoice, Bill of Entry and other documents as steel shear blades covered by Tariff Heading 8208.90. The goods were assessed to duty under Heading 8203.30.Appellant moved for re-assessment under Tariff Heading 8208.90 and produced a catalogue which was mostly in foreign language. Assistant Collector rejected the claim and directed reassessment under Heading 8202.99. Collector (Appeals) having dismissed the appeal filed by the importer, the present appeal has been filed.3. Though the import documents described the goods as steel shear blades, appellant admitted before the lower authorities that the goods were actually blades for Gangsaw Sawing Machine. Goods were actually assessed treating them as falling under sub-heading 8203.30. "Files, rasps, pliers (including cutting pliers, pincers, tweezers, metal cutting sheers, pipe-cutters, bolt...
State Bank of India Vs. Jay Rubber Co. (i) Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas493(Delhi)
Y.K. Sabharwal J. 1. The suit out of which this application has arisen was filed by the plaintiff-bank on December 16, 1987. The defendants in spite of various opportunities did not file written statement and the case was thus proceeded with under Order 8, rule 10, and the judgment was pronounced on July 27, 1989. In the judgment passed on July 27, 1989, the interest was awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants from the date of the decree. The plaintiff has filed this application pleading that the non-grant of the pendente lite interest, i.e., interest from the date of the suit till date of the judgment/decree was on account of inadvertence and accidental slip and omission and unless rectified it would cause grave and irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has prayed in this application filed under section 152/151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for correction of the accidental omission and slip in the judgment and decree dated July 27, 1989,...
Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Locks and Locking Devices (India)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)573; 65(1997)DLT346; 1997(40)DRJ321
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the propriety right in trade mark Vijayan for selling locks and handles. The defendant is also using the same trade mark Vijayan for selling the same product. thereforee, the plaintiff claiming to be the proprietor of trade mark Vijayan in relation to the manufacturing and marketing of locks and handles has come forward with the suit for injunction on the ground of passing off. At this interlocutory stage having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not want to enter into the discussion at length because we can have the hang of the matter by recounting a few facts which will demonstrate the case of the plaintiff to be absolutely not true. (2) In para 5 of the plaint the plaintiff states: That the trade mark Vijayan Label of the plaintiff is duly registered under No. 532484 in respect of All types of locks & handles in Class 6 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He further ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »