Delhi Court December 1996 Judgments

Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT166TriDel

1. This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 4150/88-BCH, dated 16-12-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The Appellants claimed to have imported one second hand pile cutting machine for Knitted Fabrics. They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/85, dated 1-2-1985 on the ground that the machine was pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics by filing refund claim. This refund claim was rejected by authorities below.Collector (Appeals) held though the goods were declared as pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics in proforma invoice, the Bill of Entry and photocopy of the L/C., the goods are not described as pile cutting machines for knitted fabrics in leaflet and Chartered Engineer's Certificate.3. Arguing on behalf of the appellants the ld. Counsel submits that Bill of Entry clearly describes the goods as one second hand pile cutting machine for knitted fabrics. This description has not been challenged by the Revenue. What was germ...

Exportos India Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)96; 65(1997)DLT796

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for a decree of sum of Rs. 12,16,782.49, the principal amount being Rs. 8,27,398.37 and the balance being interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum with effect from 1.4.79 till the date of filing of the suit. (2) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business of export of garments from India to various countries including the European Economic Community and United States of America. (3) The Defendant No. 1 is the Union of India, whereas the Defendant No. 2 is the Textile Commissioner who announces every year various cash incentives to which garment exporters arc entitled to. The Defendant No. 4 is the Apparel Export Promotion Council. (4) On 29.3.78, the Defendant No. 1 acting through the office of Defendant No. 2 vide its D.D. No. EPP/P-5/(30)/6/614/17 dated 29.3.78, intimated to the Defendant No. 3 its decision to contribute to the Export Promotion Funds ...

State Vs. R.P. Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997CriLJ1256; 65(1997)DLT64; 1997RLR50

Arun Kumar, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5/12/1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi acquitting the respondent for offence under section 190(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Briefly the facts are that the respondent had been summoned under section 2:) Criminal Procedure Code . on me allegation that on 21/07/1995 at about 9.55 A.M. he was folia driving vehicle No. DL-2CD 2892at the Raja Garden Chowk, New Delhi The vehicle driven by there spondent was found emitting excessive smoke density in violation of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989hereinafter referred to as the Cmv Rules). The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On checking for pollution the vehicle driven by the accused was found to be emitting smoke density of Carbon Monoxide 5.7 per cent which is far in excess to the standard prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 115 according to which it should not exceed 3 per cent by volume.(2) On facts there is no ...

Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Rohtash Financiers (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(40)DRJ18

ORDER20, Rule 11 is a self-contained provision dealing with the power of the Court to make an order postponing payment of the decretal amount or making it payable by installments. Sub-rule (1) coffers power on the Court to make such an order at the time of the passing of the decree if there is sufficient reason to do so. But the amount decreed would not include future interest from the date of the decree. What then is to happen in regard to such decree? Sub-rule (1) makes provision in this behalf also and says that the Court may order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made payable by installments, 'with or without interest'. The provision in regard to interest from the date of the decree in a case where payment of the decretal amount is postponed or the decretal amount is made payable by installments is thus made in sub-rule (1) itself and that sub-rule confers discretionary power on the court either to refuse interest altogether or to award interest wit...

Malvika Madan Sehgal and anr. Vs. M.M. Sehgal Limited and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)512; [1998]91CompCas133(Delhi); 65(1997)DLT381

Vijender Jain, J. (1) This is an application (CA No. 2784/94 ) filed by the plaintiffs praying, inter alia, that R restraint order be passed against defendant Nos.l to 28 from alienating, transferring, selling, mortgaging or parting with the possession of the property situated at 3, Friends Colony, New Delhi. It seems that on 3.2.1995 an ex parte order was passed in favor of plaintiffs directing the defendants to maintain status-quo with regard to its fixed assets. The defendants have vehemently contended that suit itself is not maintainable and ex parte stay be vacated. (2) Mr. Rajiv Sawhney, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, has vehemently argued that a Trust was created in favor of the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, by defendant No. 29, Mrs. Prabha Sehgal, Sister-in-law of defendant No. 2, with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 appointed as Trustees. It has further been contended that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 transferred the entire issued share capital o...

Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. VipIn Kumar Goyal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant was carrying on business of sale/purchase of company shares listed at Major Stock Exchanges in India. Opposite party No. 1 was Managing Director of M/s. Hy Fly Financial and Management Services Pvt. Ltd. The opposite party entered into a contract with the complainant on 16.9.92 for the sale of 1.5 lac shares of Roshanlal Oil Mills Ltd. @ Rs. 8/- per share. Confirmation memo dated 16.9.92 was issued by the opposite party. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 48,000/- by banker's cheque dated 16.9.92 as advance deposit against the said contract. Further case of the complainant is that the opposite party neither delivered the shares nor refunded the advance deposit even after closure of the right issue. The complainant paid a large number of visits to their office but to no purpose. The complainant claimed refund of Rs.48,000/- paid as advance deposit, Rs. 3 lacs on account of loss of net profit @ Rs. 2/- per share, Rs. 6 lacs on account of expens...

Cosmic Materials Test Center Pvt. Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT237TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs, Bangalore dated 13-7-1987. The appellants had requested, when the matter had come up on the board last occasion, that they will be submitting technical literature and the case may be decided on that basis. Accordingly, we have gone through the Appeal Memorandum, written submissions and technical literature received under letter dated 5-6-1996.2. We have heard the learned DR. He stated that the issue relates to an item which has been described in the bill of entry and invoice as 'Micro Hardness Tester' according to Vicker's with Digital Eye piece.3. The appellants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 49/78 and the present issue is that whether they were entitled to this Notification. In this connection, he would draw attention to the impugned order. The Collector has observed in his order that the tester imported is not merely a Vickers Hardness Tester which alone is covered by the OGL but something more than that. ...

Dda Vs. Sh. Atul Gupta and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi155

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The short pointwhich needs to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant DDA (for short the 'Authority') is entitled to forfeit the entire amount of Rs. 3,71,250/- deposited by the respondents at the time of auction or would it be only entitled to forfeit 20% of disposal price of the flat No. A-32, Asian Games Village Complex.2. The aforesaid question arises on these undisputed facts :By the advertisement published in newspapers, the appellant-Authority offered residential flats constructed by it in the Asian Games village for sale by auction. At an auction held on 29-8-1986, the respondents made the highest bid of Rs. 14,85,000.00 for the flat No. A-32, which was accepted and the respondents paid 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 3,71,250.00 to the appellant. The respondents failed to pay the balance amount despite receipt of the demand letter dated 8-9-86 as a result whereof their bid was cancelled by the appellant. Thereafter, respondents demanded re...

Tilak Raj Chopra Vs. Alitalia Airlines

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)494; 65(1997)DLT565; 1997(40)DRJ531

J.B. Goel, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.4,50,000.00 as damages on alleged wrongful dismissal of his service by the defendant. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that he joined the defendant in 1964 as Sales Representative and was promoted as Senior Sales Representative and subsequently as Regional Sales Supervisor for Northern India and Nepal. During this period his service record was outstanding. Not having job satisfaction he tendered resignation on or about 9.8.1973. However, he was called by the Chief of defendant in Rome and in appreciation of his services he was offered promotion and so he withdrew his resignation and he was then promoted as Sales Supervisor for Northern India and Nepal on higher salary in September, 1973. He was also informed that he would be governed by the service Rules and Regulations of the defendant applicable to the Executives in India. The services of the plaintiff were terminated by the defendant on 31.12.1974. It is alleg...

Lahori Singh Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT642; 1997(40)DRJ368

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Appellant Lahori Singh was employed as Clerk with M/s Larson & Toubro Ltd. He was to retire at the age of 58 years. He offered to be medically examined and thereafter given extention till the age of 60 years. The employer/ respondent declined his offer. He felt aggrieved with the attitude of the respondent because according to him the respondent could not retire him from service till he completed the age of 60 years. To take the benefit of 60 years he placed reliance on the settlements arrived at between the Management and Larson & Toubro Workers Union of which the appellant No.1 is a member. The latest settlement relied by him was dated 30th December,1993. This was entered into between the Union and the Management at Bombay. As per this Clause No.6.3.1 the age of retirement is 58 years, but the same is extendable depending on the requirement of the company at its descretion subject to medical fitness by the Company's medical officer for another period of two years. R...