Delhi Court February 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gilani Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT409TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Deputy Collector of Customs, New Custom House, Bombay, confiscating two consignments of Wet Dates under Section lll(d) of Customs Act, 1962 with Redemption Fine of Rs. 1,20,0007- and imposing penalty of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh respectively and on condition that redemption fine should be paid within one month which was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).2. The documents available in the case show that M/s. Causia Exports Enterprise placed an order for two consignments of Wet Dates and Bills of Entry were prepared in the name of the Importer. The Bills of Entry were surrendered as the Importer did not desire to take the goods on account of delay in receipt of the consignments. The price agreed was US Dollars 275 per M.T. It appears that the appellant intervened and offered to take the goods if on account of the deterioration of goods and demurrage charges the price was reduced to US Dollars 215 per M.T.This was agreed upon and...
Godrej Soaps Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT338TriDel
1. Appeal Nos. E/285 to 289/85-A are filed by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and the remaining Appeal Nos. E/532 & 533/85-A are filed by the Department, involving a common issue and therefore they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri G. Shivadass, Advocate for the appellants and the Department was duly represented by Shri Vijay Singh, ld. SDR, in all these cases.3. The party has come in appeal aggrieved with the order dated 5-11-1984 of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Bombay on merits whereas the Deptt. also filed appeal on the issue of time bar since the Collector (Appeals) has held that some portion of the demand was barred by time in these cases.4. The issue involved in all these cases is regarding applicability of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises & Salt Act. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soaps and are using minor oils in relation thereof.5. The point to be considered in these appeals is whet...
Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT139TriDel
1. The appellant is a sugar factory and also produces molasses. The molasses were being molasses stored in three storage tanks. A check of the quantity of molasses in each of these tanks by the officers showed excess stock in tank No. 1 and shortage in the other two tanks when compared with the entries in the RG 1 register. After issue of notice, the Additional Collector issued confiscation of the excess stock of molasses and demanded duty on it. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q.2. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the assessee's contention that a total of the quantities in each of the stock tallied with the figure in RG 1 register and that therefore there is no excess.He therefore, set aside the confiscation of the molasses and demand of duty upon it. He sustained the penalty imposed on the assessee on the ground that since the quantity in each of the tank did not tally with the stock cards maintained for it. There was a failure to maintain statutory ...
Misha Vadera Vs. Ravi Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)113; 2003(39)DRJ7
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 preferred by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by order dated 9.11.95 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants seeking amendment in the written statement has been allowed. (2) The suit property consists of a flat measuring 1106 Sq.ft. on the firs,t floor of a multi-storeyed building known as 'Hansalya' situated at 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Mr. Misha Vadera, the plaintiff No. 1 is Managing Director of Hotel Hans Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff No.2. The defendant No. 1 is admittedly the owner of the suit property. The defendant No.2 is a real estate agent. The defendant No.3 is builder of the multi-storeyed building of which the suit property forms a part. (3) According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell the' suit property in favor of the pl...
Surender Arora Vs. P.N. Mehta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT124; (1996)113PLR1
K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The plaintiff has filed the above petition for the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking leave of this Court for amending the plaint. In the first instance, the plaintiff brought for the following reliefs against the two defendants:- '(A) a decree for declaration may be passed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to the effect that the agreement of sale dated 13.3.1994 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, regarding transfer of the Defendants' right, title and interest under the agreement dated 15.10.1992 executed between them M/s lnder Pratap Singh Huf for the allotment of the 11th floor of the proposed multi-storeyed building known as 'Narain Manzil', 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi subsists between the parties to this suit; (B) a decree for permanent injunction may be granted in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants to the effect that they have no right to transfer any of their right, title and interest in the agr...
Himachal Telematics Limited Vs. Himachal Futuristic Communications Lim ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996IIAD(Delhi)423; [1996]86CompCas325(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT138; 1996(37)DRJ476
Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to sanction the scheme of amalgamation between M/s Himachal Telematics Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferor Company') and M/s Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferee Company'). The main object which is sought to be achieved by the proposed scheme of amalgamation is the combining of the multifarious activities presently being carried out by the two companies under separate umbrellas with a view to enable them to have greater control over the production and marketing function. The amalgamation scheme is for better and profitable utilisation of combined resources of both the companies and to present a consolidated projection to the investors. The scheme of amalgamation was approved by the equity shareholders as well as all classes of creditors i.e. secured and unsecured creditors of the transferor as well as transferee company. The scheme...
Karan Singh and Phoolwati Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR195
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) [ED. facts : Petitioners are occupying certain property in Ah'ganj Estate. This property is outside the Railway Gate of Lodhi Road Riy. Stn. in Aliganj Estate. Its Khasra no is 68. Petitioners filed suit and W.P. alleging that they were owners in possession and Ndmc should not disturb them. Ndmc replied that Khasra 68 was not in their jurisdiction and they are not in any way concerned. Later on Ndmc carried out some demolition in Khasra no. 71 and 72. Petitioners claiming that Ndmc had demolished their property and in view of their earlier stand, they were guilty of contempt. The efence was that Ndmc had not touched Khasra no. 63 a;;d their action was confined to Khasra no. 71 & 72J. After detailing above, judgment is :(2) Having heard (he learned counsel for the parties at length, we are satisfied that there is a bonafide dispute as to the identity of (he property in which right and possession are claimed by the petitioners. The Ndmc cannot be said to have committed...
Common Cause Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT55; 1996(37)DRJ418
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This writ petition has been placed before me in view of the difference of opinion between Mahinder Narain, J. and Cyriac Joseph,J. in regard to the question of validity of nomination of the third respondent as a Member and President of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'AIIMS'), the second respondent. In the instant petition, the petitioners seek a direction in the nature of Quo Warranto declaring that Shri B. Shankranand, the third respondent is not entitled to hold or continue to hold office as the President-Member of the second respondent and as Chairman of its governing body. The writ petitioners further seek writ in the nature of Mandamus for restraining the third respondent from functioning as the President and the Member of the second respondent and as the Chairman of its governing body. There is also another prayer in the nature of a consequential relief for quashing the proceedings, deliberations and minutes of the meetings of the In...
Ghanshyam Das Aggarwal Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996IAD(Delhi)1103; 1996(37)DRJ485
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This common order shall govern the disposal of Cwp No. 4785/95, 4814/95 and 2984/95. The three petitions are filed by three highest bidders in respect of three industrial plots in an auction held by Delhi Development Authority on 22.6.1995 and they are aggrieved by the rejection of their bids by the Vice Chairman, DDA.(2) The facts, not in controversy, lie in a narrow compass in so far as relevant for the purpose of these petitions. The respondent Delhi Development Authority advertised auction by public sale of the industrial plots situated in Mangolpuri, Phase I Scheme. In the table below arc set out plot numbers, area in square meters, reserved price, the highest bid and whether the bid was accepted or rejected. S. No. Plot No. Area (Sq. Reserved Highest Bid Accepted/Rejected Mts.) Price (Auction held on 21-6-1995) 1. T-5/229 200 11,20,000.00 16,80,000.00 Accepted 2. T-5/230 200 11,20,000.00 15,63,000.00 Accepted 3. T-5/243 269 14,60,670.00 20,75,000.00 ** 4. T-5/...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Mohd. Ishtaaq
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(37)DRJ25; (1996)IILLJ388Del
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) In the present case the Management of Mcd is challenging the decision of the Labour Court rendered under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act whereby the Labour Court had taken upon itself in an application under Section 33-C(2) the determination of the dispute relating to conditions of service between the employer and employee and the entitlement of the workman on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhirendra Chamoli and Surender Singh. The determination of right is not based on the contract of employment or any prior adjudication and is in the nature of determination which could be undertaken only as a reference of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Such prior determination or written contract of employment alone give rise to an existing right in favor of the workman and only the benefits flowing there from can be computed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial .Disputes Act. This question has since been set...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »