Delhi Court November 1996 Judgments

Om Parkash Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT689; 1996(39)DRJ573

Arun Kumar, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 29th September, 1993. The appellant was charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife. He was convicted and sentenced to. undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the said judgment.(2) We may first note certain facts which are not in dispute in this case:- (I)Smt. Shrishd Devi, deceased was the wife of the appellant. The appellant had returned to India from Burma along with his family sometime in the year 1965. (ii) The appellant has three sons and one daughter. One of the sons separated from the family after his marriage. The other two sons and the daughter are all grown-up and lived in the family house at 19B-1/B, Janakpuri, New Delhi with their mother Smt. Shrishti Devi. (iii) The appellant had left the family about 7/8 years prior to the date of incident and had started residing in a Gurudwara and he wa...

Shadi Lal Sikka Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)303; 65(1997)DLT563; 1996(39)DRJ489

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot a flat to the petitioner within a reasonable time consistently with the terms and conditions of its Fourth Registration Scheme on New Pattern - 1979, as evidenced by Annexure P-1. (2) In the year 1979, the respondent Dda floated a scheme known as Registration Scheme on New Pattern - 1979 (hereinafter - 'the scheme', for short) formulated with the object of reducing the sale price of M.I.G., L.I.G. and Janta flats so as to bring it within the reach of the common man and providing for construction of flats so as to make them available for such persons. The scheme opened on 1.9.1979 and closed on 30.9.1979. On 19.9.1979, the petitioner was registered under the scheme having deposited an amount of Rs.1,500.00 and was issued certificate assigning the registration No. 11098. (3) The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been waiti...

Gee Gee Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)163; 65(1997)DLT888; 1997RLR19

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Ruel D.B. The short question involved in this petition is about the legality of the impugned order dated 4th January, 1996 made by Sales Tax Officer rejecting the application of the petitioner for issue of two ST-1 forms for the year 1992-1995, on the ground that the petitioner/dealer has violated the provisions of Rule 8(4)(c)(ii) of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules') as the dealer has defaulted in making the payment of the amount of tax assessed for Rs. 20,317.00 under the Local Act for the assessment year 1992-1993. Briefly the undisputed facts are these. (2) On 19th July, 1995,assessment order for the year l992-93 was passed levying tax on the sale of old office car and obsolete tools which according to the dealer was not liable to tax under the provisions of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 as the petitioner claimed that it was not carrying on the business in the sale of said goods. Feeling aggrieved with the order of assessment the petitioner has f...

Hori Lal Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)774; 1997(2)ALT(Cri)5; 1997CriLJ821; 65(1997)DLT78; 1996(39)DRJ592

Arun Kumar, J. (1) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for grant of parole for a period of three months. The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 12th April, 1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi for offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, Ndps Act) and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of rupees one lakh. It is not clear from the petition whether the petitioner filed any appeal against the said judgment and if so what has been the fate of the appeal - whether it is pending or stands disposed of. The petition only mentions that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 14th May, 1991. (2) Notice of the petition was issued to the State. Shri S.K.Aggarwal, the learned Standing Counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding power of this Court to entertain the petition. This objection is based on Section 32-A of the Ndps Act...

Manik Gurbuxani Vs. Madan Jha

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)306; 65(1997)DLT19; 1996(39)DRJ697

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The petitioner is a member of the respondent No. 3, a cooperative society, both governed by the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter the Act, for short). The petitioner raised a dispute and sought for its reference to arbitration by filing a petition under Section 60 of the Act before the Registrar Cooperative Societies. He also made an application seeking an interim relief. The Registrar directed maintenance of status quo till the decision of the case. (2) The society feeling aggrieved by the interim order of the Registrar preferred a revision petition under Section 78(6) of the Act to the Cooperative Tribunal. 2.1The Tribunal has, vide its impugned order dated 17.11.1995, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Registrar by forming an opinion that the Registrar has no competence or jurisdiction to pass any interim or interlocutory order at the reference stage of Section 60 of the Act.(3) It is submitted by the learned cou...

Cyanamid India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Patent or Proprietary Medicines falling under erstwhile T.I. 14E. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period from 16-12-1983 to 16-2-1984. Appellant had filed two prices lists, one under part II in regard to drugs supplied to Government as per DGS&D rate contract and the other under part III for sale through normal channels at the prices fixed in the price list referred to in paragraph 19 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1979 (for short, the 1979 Order) issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Notification No. 245/83 dated 13-9-1983 granted exemption to manufacturers of Patent or Proprietary Medicines of so much of duty leviable on the medicines as is in excess of the duty calculated on the basis of value of medicines arrived at after allowing a discount of 15% on the retail price of the medicine specified in paragraph 19 of the 1979 Order. The condition in proviso (iii) of the notification is that the ma...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Durgapur Cement Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT197TriDel

1. Respondent is engaged in manufacture of Portland slag cement. One of the machines used for the purpose is "Ball Mill". Raw materials used are slag, gypsum and clinker which are crushed with the help of steel balls called "grinding media". Respondent was availing Modvat credit under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules) of the Central Excise duty paid on the steel balls. By letter dated 4-4-1989, the jurisdictional Assistant Collector informed Respondent that the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise disallowing credit of Rs. 1,01,878.12 for the period 14-3-1987 to 8-10-1988 of the Excise duty paid on steel balls on the ground that Steel Balls are not connected with manufacture of cement and are used in the form of plant, machinery, tools, appliances etc. covered by exclusion Clause (i) of Explanation to the Rule was correct. Collector (Appeals), at the instance of Respondent, set aside the above decision on the ground that the process of powdering sl...

Jacoglass Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT234TriDel

1. The appellants manufactured unvarnished glass fabrics, tapes and sleevings, classifiable under Heading 70.14. They claimed benefit of Notification No. 52/86, dated 10-2-1986 -Entry at Sl. No. 10 for assessment at nil rate of duty. The assistant Commissioner in his order held that the entry at Sl. No. 11 of the subject notification would apply whereby the goods attracted duty @ 20%. In his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that whereas unvarnished glass fibre cloth would attract nil rate of duty under Sl. No. 10 of the notification, the other two articles, namely, tapes and sleeving, were not cloth and therefore attracted duty specified under entry at Sl. No. 11. In the appeal memo, no contest is made as to the sleevings, but it is claimed that tapes would receive the benefit since tapes are nothing but narrow woven fabrics.2. At the time of personal hearing, the appellants were not present in spite of notice having been issued to them. After hearing Sh. M. Haja Mohideen, ld. D...

Ravi Garg Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(69)LC107Tri(Delhi)

1. This reference application has been filed against the final order No. A/837-42/96-NB dt. 15.3.1996. The Tribunal disposed of by this common order, these appeals arising from common order in original No.331/91 dt. 14.2.1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. Out of six appellants, only Shri Ravi Garg, the present applicant has filed this reference application seeking reference of the questions noted below for reference to the High Court in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 62. The appellant's Counsel has framed eight questions for reference which are noted hereinbelow: I. Whether the Appellate Board was right in giving a finding that there was no violation of the rules and principles of natural justice in placing reliance and pressing in service the relied upon documents without their veracity having been tested by the touch-stone of cross examination; II. Whether the Appellate Board was right in giving a finding that the petitioner/a...

Nissan Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT470TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Nissan Electronics (P) Ltd., Bombay. Appeal No. E/1067/87-B1 relates to the classification of the products which have been described by the appellants as tape-deck Model 607-807 useful in car. Impugned order-in-appeal is dated 17-10-1986.The appellants had classified their products under Item No. 37 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and claimed exemption, under Board's Letter No. 15/2/63-CX, dated 30-5-1963. The Department classified the goods under Item No. 37AA and held that no exemption was available.Appeal No. E/1065/87-B1 relates to the refund claim filed by the appellants on the ground that their goods which were classifiable under Item No. 37A were exempted by the Board's order dated 30-5-1963. The impugned order-in-appeal is the same dated 17-10-1986 passed by the same Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. As both the appeals arise out of the common order-in-appeal, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common ord...