Delhi Court March 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.
M/S. Credit Capital Finance Corporation Vs. Foremost Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi310; [1996]87CompCas251(Delhi)
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. I.A. No. 4708 of 1994.The plaintiff has filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the agreement between the parties which contains an arbitration clause be filed in court and for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. Along with the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 40, Rule 1 of the same Act for appointment of a Receiver with respect to the leased equipment. On the said application, this court had appointed a Receiver to take possession of the leased equipment. In the meantime the present application has been filed under Sections 442 and 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that proceedings pending in this court are liable to be stayed until the plaintiff seeks permission or leave of the Company Court which has allegedly passed the winding up order with respect to the defendant Company. The learned counsel f...
Rajeev Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Cegat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT76(Del)
ORDER1. Heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders passed by the Collector of Customs on 25-1-1991 and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7-4-1995 and directions to deliver the goods to the petitioner or to the Railway Authorities. The petitioner claimed that by virtue of certain Railway receipts, the Ball Bearings purchased from Calcutta should have been released in favor of the petitioner. Admittedly these Ball Bearings were seized by the Customs Authorities while they were in the custody of Northern Railway Authorities at Calcutta. The Customs Authorities seized the goods as they wanted to investigate whether they were smuggled goods. The Collector of Customs passed an order on 25-1-1991 and found as follows :- 'I find that the Ball Bearings in question are not notified item under Chapter IV-A of Customs Act, 1962 and neither these goods are covered by Section 123, ...
Sham Sunder Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3376; ILR1996Delhi309
P.K. Bahri, J.1. During the course of the arguments being addressed in the regular Criminal Appeal, the present application has been moved by the State for permission to tender in evidence the supplementary CFSL report as well as to examine a link witness Constable Sukhpal who had taken the samples from the Moharrar Malkhana and had deposited the same with the CFSL office. 2. The short question which arises for consideration is whether this Court, at this stage, should permit such evidence to be taken which obviously is very material evidence for deciding the case. The powers which have been given to the Court are coughed in Sections 311 and 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code. These Sections are reproduced as follows :- '311. Power to summon material witnesses or examine person present - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall a...
Madho Ram Vs. P.K. Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT540
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) In the present petition, the award of the Tribunal has been impugned. The dispute referred is as under :- 'WHETHER the services of Sh. Madhav Ram have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably, if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?'(2) Counsel states that the Tribunal also tried to enlarge the scope of the terms of reference by adjudicating that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. I am unable to accept this because the matters which are incidental to the dispute and for the final determination of the dispute, can be gone in to and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal under section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In case, the existence of employer-employee relationship is disputed, it world certainly be a matter incidental to the dispute referred for adjudication. (3) The only evidence to which the Counsel has drawn my attention to about the employment is the cross-examination ...
Rajinder Tiku Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD410(Delhi)
1. The assessee and the Department have preferred these appeals mainly with reference to the exemption under section 10(17B) of the Income-tax Act in relation to generation reward (incentive) granted to DESU employees. Since the appeals were heard together the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The brief facts in these cases are that the assessees are employees of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU), which pays to its employees generation reward (incentive). It was claimed by the assessees that the said generation reward was exempt under the provisions of section 10(17B) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had claimed that the Central Government had approved Meritorious Productivity Scheme framed by the Ministry of Energy, Government of India, for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1991-92 vide Board's order dated 15-5-1989. The assessees, therefore, urged that the incentive scheme of DESU for awarding generation incentive sho...
Larson and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order of the Assistant Collector by which the benefit of the concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 49/78 at Serial No. 13 thereof was denied to 'Surface finish/Roughness Measuring equipment' imported by the appellants herein on the ground that the goods were capable of performing only the function of measuring and was not testing equipment, entitled to the benefit of the above Notification.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Varshneya, learned Senior Executive of the appellant company and Shri Mohd. Ali, learned DR and carefully considered their submission.The Operator's Handbook of the imported item 'Surtronic 3 shows that the equipment provides a numerical assessment of the roughness of a surface by the Ra method (Roughness average method). The relevant pages of the Handbook are reproduced below :- Before reading the description of the instrument the user should understan...
Collector of Customs Vs. Sagar Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT298TriDel
1. These are Revenue appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals). The learned Collector held that the imported items namely 'Bezel' fitted with glass is covered by Public Notice No. 32 (PN) 92-97, dated 17-7-1992 subject to the condition prescribed therein. The learned Collector is aggrieved with this order only with regard to one item Bezel fitted with glass. The Department has not challenged the order pertaining to metal price. Therefore, the present appeals of the Revenue are only with regard to the import of 'Bezel fitted with glass'. The contention of the Revenue is that this item is covered by negative list of import and therefore, the goods required licence and as there was no licence it has contravened the provisions of Import & Export (Control) Act. The case was taken up for hearing.Learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the issue is no longer res Integra as such issue has already been decided in batch of appeals as in the case of Co...
D.M. Gears (P) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT378TriDel
1. Modvat credit of Rs. 23,140 (BED) plus Rs. 3,471 (SED) has been denied to the appellants under Rule 57-1 of the Central Excise Rules and penalty of Rs. 2,500/- has also been imposed upon them under Rule 173Q on the ground of contravention of the provisions of Rule 57G in as much as, the appellants did not declare Alloy Steel in rounds falling under sub-heading 7228.30 and availed credit on this input for the manufacture of their final products Motor Vehicle parts.2. The learned Consultant Shri R. Pal Singh draws my attention to the Modvat declaration dated 29-1-1993 and submits that the description (under heading or sub-heading) of Chapter 72 is sufficient to cover the input Alloy Steel rounds and Modvat credit cannot be disallowed for non-observance of the procedural requirement of declaration. In this connection, he cites several orders of the Tribunal including the following : 3. The learned DR Shri Ram Sharan opposes the contention of the learned Consultant pointing out that Al...
North Land Rubber Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT394TriDel
1. The common issue in these appeals arising out of the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), relates to the rejection of refund claim filed by the appellants, herein, by the Assistant Commissioner and upholding thereof by the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of unjust enrichment under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 as it stood prior to 20-9-1991. The appellants have claimed that the ground taken by the lower authorities for rejection of the refund claim is extraneous and not an ingredient for granting refund under Section 11B as it stood at the material time.2. We have considered the matter and we find that the amended provisions of Section 11B have been held to be retrospectively operative by the Supreme Court in two decisions of Union of India v.Jain Spinners Ltd. reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 which was followed in the other decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. ITC Ltd. reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3. The Supreme Co...
Jugal Kishore Soni Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT288TriDel
1. We have heard the learned Counsel, Shri Harbans Singh for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, ld. S.D.R. for the Revenue. The issue involved is seizure of silver weighing 13.684 kg. on 17-5-1990 and its confiscation by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur, which has been upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in the impugned order. We find that there is substance in the contention of the learned Counsel that there has been failure to afford reasonable opportunity to the appellants in these cases. They had, in their reply to the show cause notice, asked for cross-examination of the witnesses to the Panchnama of the Seizing Officers and of the experts who gave opinion about the silver. The learned Counsel in this regard cited the Final Order of the Bench No.A/260-262/93-NRB, dated 7-4-1993 in the case of Yaru Khan and Ors. v.Collector of Customs, Jaipur. In that case, the Tribunal held in similar circumstances, that the appellants no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »