Delhi Court December 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.
Maya Devi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT405
Mohd. Sharnim, J. (1) The petitioner has brought forward the present petition for issue of a direction against the respondent No. 3, their servants and agents restraining them from carrying out illegal construction of flats in the area marked A in between Pocket A-11 and A-14 at Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi which is a site reserved for a primary school in the lay out plan and for restoration of the said area for the purposes of a primary school and to construct a school thereon. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under : that the petitioner is a mother of four daughters. Out of them, namely, Priyanka and Garima are 11 and 9 years of age respectively and are students of a primary school. The petitioner is also a member of the Park Committee of Kalkaji Extension. The petitioner is a resident of Kalkaji Extension area. The population of the area is approximately 1.6 lacs, yet with no Government primary school. Consequently the children of the said area have to ...
K.C. Taneja Vs. Pramod Kumar Taneja
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)53; 1997(41)DRJ160
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the application being I.A. No. 2825/1995 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code praying for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for possession and mense profit against the defendant in respect of the portion occupied by the defendant on the first floor of the House No. E-341, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. (2) The case pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the aforesaid property being House No. E-341, Greater Kailash-II, new Delhi. After the purchase of the aforesaid plot of land, the plaintiff through his financial resources and income constructed the house thereon which is two and a half storeyed building. The plaintiff is living in the said house Along with his wife and the youngest son ever since it was constructed by the plaintiff. One of the sons of the plaintiff, namely, the defendant has been living separately from the plaintiff ...
Dhani Ram and anr. Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-06-1996
Reported in: 65(1997)DLT868; (1997)115PLR44
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) By this order I propose to dispose of the application (I.A.No. 11687/1996) filed by the defendant No. 1 to 7 under Order 14 Rule 5 Cpc praying for amendment of the issues framed in the suit. (2) The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 8 lacs Along with interest from the defendants No. 1 to 7 and also for restoration of the buildings of the plaintiff demolished by the defendants. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the building of which the plaintiffs were in possession, did not belong to Delhi Development Authority and was never acquired by them not was it in a development area. The staff of the Delhi Development Authority illegally entered and trespassed upon the said land and demolished and damaged the buildings and structures belonging to the plaintiffs upon the said land without any notice. It is further pleaded that although damage and loss caused to the plaintiffs by illegal and unauthorised act by the staff and men of Dda including defendants No. ...
Poona Pressings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT393TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Poona Pressings (P) Ltd., Pune, the only point for our consideration is whether the thrust washers produced by the appellants were classifiable as thin walled bearing for the purposes of Item No. 34A of the old Central Excise Tariff. Relying upon the tariff advise the adjudicating authority, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, had held that the thrust washers were having motor vehicle application and were classifiable under Item No. 34A. The matter was heard on 5-12-1996 when Sh. P.B. Vicharay, Consultant, stated that the thrust washers manufactured by them although were having motor vehicle application but were not thin walled bearing and they were correctly classifiable under Item No. 68 of the tariff as unspecified motor vehicle parts. It was his submission that the tariff advise referred to the ISI Specifications which in turn referred to the dimensions and there is no finding that the thrust washers manufactured by them were covered by the dimen...
Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT607TriDel
1. These are five appeals against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dated 21-7-1993 and 20-9-1993.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Viscose Staple Fibre' at their factory. It is stated that in the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fibre, filtration of Viscose Solution is essential for removing impurities like gels, silica and undissolved cellulosic particles and for that purpose special pressure type continuous filtration machinery is employed. These machines use Sintered Filter Media as the medium of filtration. As with any sophisticated filtering machine, the filtering medium is the most vital part of the equipment. The appellants further state that the filtration plant performs the function of filtering and purifying viscose in liquid form for the manufacture of Viscose Staple Fibre. Copies of the drawings showing dimensions of sintered filter media and the viscose filtration machinery where the said goods are used as c...
Mepro Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT252TriDel
1. The common appellants are engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines falling under erstwhile T.I. 14E for themselves and for and on behalf of two concerns, namely, M/s. N.R. Jet Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (for short, NRJP) and M/s. Fine Dye Stuff and Chemicals (I) Ltd. (for short, FDSC). The dispute in these appeals relates to the duty payable on the goods manufactured on behalf of these two concerns. Appellants filed separate price list No. 84/84-85, dated 29-12-1984 in Part-I in regard to goods manufactured on behalf of NRJP and price list Nos. 107 and 108, dated 22-2-1985 in Part-I in regard to goods manufactured on behalf of FDSC, declaring the wholesale price and claiming deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Two show cause notices dated 27-2-1985 and 8-3-1985 respectively were issued proposing to reject the price lists on the ground that appellants were governed by Notification No. 245/83, dated 13-9-1983 under which excise duty in excess o...
Carter Wallace Inc. Vs. Mod Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)149; 1997(1)ARBLR192(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT858
A.K. Srivastava, J. (1) This is a suit for perpetual injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, passing off and rendition of account seeking following reliefs : '(A)that the Defendants by themselves their servants, agents, distributors and stockists be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's trade mark 'NEAR or Nair or from using any other trade mark deceptively similar thereto in relation to goods covered by Classes 3 and 5 of the said Act and Rules intruding inter alias Hair removers so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'NEAR; (b) that the Defendante by themselves, their servants, agents, distributors and stockists be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from manufacturing, selling, exporting or offering for sale, advertising and/or in any manner dealing with whether in India or any other foreign country product bearing the plaintiff's trad...
Shiv Kumar Vs. Mohd. Sagir and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1264; 1997RLR57
Arun Kumar, J.(1) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated May 20,1996 passed by Shri Sanjay Garg, M.M., Delhi.(2) Facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that Shiv Kumar, appellant, filed a complaint u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Mohd. Saghir, respondent 1 and M/s. Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Shafiq & Co., respondent 2, on 11.11.91 and vide order dated July 4, 1994, both these respondents were summoned as accused for 9.9.94 by the trial Magistrate. Respondent 1 who appeared on 9.9.94 was admitted to bail. On that date itself appellant filed an application u/S. 319 Cr. P.C. and on that application Mohd. Atiq, Mohd. Abid, Mohd. Javed and Mst. Jamila Khatoon, respondents 3 to 6 being partners of respondent 2, were further ordered to be summoned as accused for 2.3. 95 by the trial magistrate vide order dated 16.1.95. Thereafter on 14.2.96 respondent 1 put in appearance along with Shri M.P. Singh, Advocate and the latter made a statement...
Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. K.P. Kapur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC138
Usha Mehra, J.1. The appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has assailed the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) on two counts - (i) that the respondent had received compensation from the New India Assurance Company for the loss of his car, thereforee, he cannot be allowed to be doubly enriched by also claiming compensation for the damage of that car under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act), Secondly, there was no evidence that the car was a total loss.2. In order to appreciate the challenge on these counts, lets examine the relevant facts, those are that the respondent Mr. K.P. Kapur, an Advocate by profession parked his car on 2nd September, 1981 at about 7 or 8 a.m. at Abdul Aziz Road near his residence. A DTC bus driven by respondent No. 1 came in a fast speed driven rashly and negligently. The bus came from the side of Arya Samaj Road and struck against the stationary car of the respondent. The impact was so severe that the car of, the respond...
Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-04-1996
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT399TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposal of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri T.R.Malik SDR and perused the papers.2. The short dispute in this appeal is as to whether demurrage charges for determination of assessable (value) are required to be added to the assessable value. Appellant imported certain goods from Malaysia. Due to various reasons, provisional assessment was made on taking bond and bank guarantee. Custom House called for information regarding demurrage charges paid in regard to the detention of the vessel. A certificate was produced working out the proportionate charges referable to the goods in question. Notice was issued to appellant demanding differential duty on the demurrage charges. Appellant resisted the notice. However, Assistant Collector confirmed the demand and his order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence, the present Appeal.3. According to the appeal memorandum, show cause notice was time ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »