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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT447TriDel
1. In all these three appeals common question of law and facts arises for disposal as per law. In these appeals, the question of correct classification of the product "Presensitised Printing Plates" arises and as to whether they are classifiable under Heading 8442.50 of tariff as claimed by the revenue or under Heading 37.01/99 CTA, 1975 or 3701.99 CTA, 1985. In Appeals 2177/88-B2, 2990/89-B2, the classification pertains to old tariff in respect of the same goods as to whether classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.34/50 as claimed by the party or under 37.01 as claimed by the revenue of the erstwhile Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. In the case of Kasturi & Sons, none appeared for the appellants despite the notice being served on them. In the case of Kumudhan Printers (P) Ltd. and Kumudan Publications (P) Ltd., ld. Advocate has appeared and submits that in identical matter, the issue has been finally decided against the revenue by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2941-49 of 9...
Western Hatcheries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT492TriDel
1. Vide the said Miscellaneous Application, the applicant/appellant has sought stay of adjudication proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, initiated vide Show Cause Notice dated 19-12-1995 raising a demand of duty of Rs. 2,13,18, 911.00 by invoking the larger period of limitation.2. Appearing on behalf of the applicant, Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate has argued that the Show Cause Notice in question raises the demand on the alleged ground of classification of their product under Heading : 29.36 and 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as against the applicant's claim of Heading : 23.02. He submits that earlier also, the Collector (Appeals) has, vide his Order dated 30-11-1995, decided the issue of classification against them and as such, the Show Cause Notice pending adjudication before Collector, is likely to go against them resulting in confirmation of huge demand of duty, if not stayed. It was further pleaded by the learned Advocate that the e...
Dura-metallic (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT778TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 16-11-1987 by which the Collector (Appeals) had held that mechanical seals manufactured by the appellants are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86. He accordingly, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector.2. The point needing determination is whether mechanical seals which are admittedly parts or components of power driven pumps would be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 155/86. There is no dispute as to the classification of the product as coming under Tariff Heading 8413.00. For this, reliance has been placed on Section Note 2(b) to Section XVI84 which reads as under :- "Other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading No. 84.79 or heading No. 85.43) are to be classifiable with a machine of that kind." The Assistant Collector had foun...
Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT583
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The Claimant M/s Anant Raj Agencies was entrusted with the work by the Delhi Development Authority of providing additional facilities in resettlement colony, Mangolpuri Shahdara Internal water supply system for individual connection Group-IV. Disputes arose between the parties and Mr. K.D. Bali was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Engineer Member on 7.2.1994.(2) On 9.1.1995 the Arbitrator passed the award. There were in all seven claims. The Arbitrator decided in favor of the Claimant claim Nos 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 and claim No. 2 was rejected by the Arbitrator.(3) The Dda has filed its objection challenging the award. In claim No. 1 the Claimant made a claim of Rs. 5,72,300.00. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,776.00.(4) The objection filed by the Dda is that the claimant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the claim and the Arbitrator had awarded the amount on mere surmises and conjunctures and the award is unreasoned one contrary to Clause 25 of...
J.S. Construction Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR149(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT759
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The present suit has been registered after the Arbitrator filed his award in this Court Along with the records of the arbitration proceedings. After registration of the suit notice was issued to the parties intimating them about the filing of the award and to file objections, if any, within the statutory time limit. (2) On service of notice on the parties the respondents filed their objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award passed by the Arbitrator on 20.10.1994. The petitioner however, did not file any objection against the award. (3) It is admitted position that the Arbitrator who dealt with the arbitration proceedings was the named Arbitrator and a technical person. Although the respondents have filed their objection as against almost all the claims decided by the Arbitrator yet during the course of hearing the main thrust of argument advanced by learned Counsel for the respondents was directed against the decision of the Arbitrato...
R.D. Sharma Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ11
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) In the amended writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution R.D.Sharma, petitioner, has alleged that he is employed in Delhi Development Authority, respondent No.1 and is working as Assistant Director. Respondent No.2 is the Finance Member of respondent No.2 and is the appointing authority of the petitioner. To accommodate the inflow of refugees, who came to this country in the wake of partition, Govt. of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation initiated various resettlement schemes and one such scheme was the Kingsway Delhi Development Scheme. Under this Scheme tenements/quarters were allotted to the refugees on leasehold basis and the lease was transferable. However, the allotted quarters were declared dangerous for habitation by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and as such to facilitate the development of the quarters Government of India handed them over to the MCD. Mcd on its part demolished the existing structures and after developing the area carved ou...
N.C. Bakshi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)363; 1997(40)DRJ632
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) The present Civil Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1, Sh.H.K. Khanna, Hony. General Secretary, respondent No.2, Sh.C.K. Khanna, Hony. Club Secretary and respondent No.3, Sh.K.K. Mehra, President of the Delhi and District Cricket Association, Ferozshah Kotla Ground. Sh. O.P. Kapur, General Manager and Sh. G.S. Kehlo, Project Manager of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., have been imp leaded as respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively.(2) The petitioner in the present petition alleged that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed and disregarded the order of the Court and have carried out construction. It would be worthwhile to reproduce the order passed on 10-9- 1996, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. '7THrespondent will file an affidavit. The petitioner will take photographs as on 11-9-1996 and file them Along with an affidavit in the Court. No obstruction will be caused by the 7th respondent to the photograp...
Standard Book Company Vs. Arun Goel
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)646; 65(1997)DLT96; 1997(40)DRJ565
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs from the defendant towards damages incurred by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff tersely stated is as follows. ON07.04.1992 the plaintiff orally consented to be the distributor of third defendant Evergreen Publishing House for the book 'Guide to Export and Import Policy 1 April 1992 - 31 March 1997' published by the third defendant on 06.04.1992. On the same day the third defendant authorised one K.S. Advertising and Marketing to release an advertisement in the press for the book. On 09.04.1992 an advertisement was published in the Economic Times, New Delhi. In the advertisement the third defendant did not give the name of the publisher. On 09.04.1992 itself the plaintiff wrote to defendant No.3 to correct the advertisement.(2) On 14.05.1992, the correct advertisement was made and the plaintiff is only the distributor of the book. On 09.04.1992, a notice was issued by the first defendant in the fo...
Hans Pal Singh Bhinder Vs. University of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ584
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two petitions Civil Writ No.l654/96 (Shri Hanspal Singh Bhinder v. University of Delhi and another) and Cwp No-3686/96 (Miss Nidhi Sota v. University of Delhi and another). The petitioner in the first case is a resident of Delhi and after passing his 10+2 Examination appeared in Pre-medical Entrance Test (DPMT) for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. He did not, however, succeed in that test and was not placed in the merit list.(2) The petitioner appeared in Mbbs Entrance Test conducted by Manipal Academy of Higher Education (M.A.H.E.) and passed the said examination and was ranked at No.232 as will be indicated from the communication dated October 18, 1994 (Annexure P/6 to the writ petition). He joined the said course and passed the first professional Examinations from the above said University having obtained 55 per cent marks and was placed in the second class. The petitioner thereafter applied for transfer/migration from Kasturba Medical C...
Raji Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ47
S.K. Mahajan, J. (1) The petitioner has applied for being admitted to bail in a case punishable under Sections 302/211/34 IPC.(2) The prosecution case is that on 13th November, 1995, the complainant reported that his son Yogesh about five years old was missing since 10th November, 1995 when he was playing on the road near jhuggi. The next day he got another statement recorded with the police stating that a few days back Raju who was residing in a jhuggi in the same area, while under the influence of liquor, had pushed his wife at which there was an altercation with Raju and he had also slapped Raju twice. Raju feeling insulted had threatened to take revenge upon the complainant and on 10th November, 1995, at about 9/9.30 p.m. when he was looking for his son, Raju and his friend Vir Pal came there and when the complainant informed them about his missing son and about his intention to lodge a report Raju and Vir Pal persuaded him not to lodge a report with the police as the police would ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »