Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Partap Gases and Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Achal Investment Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ292

Vijender Jain, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Section 391 read with section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 for sanction of the scheme of arrangement/amalgamation of M/s.Partap Gases and Chemicals Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Transferor Company') with M/s.Achal Investment Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Transferee Company'). (2) The petitioner/transferor company was incorporated on 3.4.1973 and has its registered office at A-4, Kalindi Market, New Delhi. Its authorised share capital was Rs-5,00,00,000 divided in 50,00,000 equity shares of RS.IO.00 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital was Rs.4,04,32,000.00 divided into 40,43,200 equity shares of Rs. 10.00 . The main objects of the transferor company are (a) to carry on business of manufacturers and dealers of natural gases and other gases or kindred substances or any compound thereof by any process and of selling or supplying such gases, substances and compounds or any of them to such performances as...

Gurinder Singh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)96; 63(1996)DLT104; 1996(37)DRJ598; 1996RLR351

Usha Mehra, J. (1) Petitioners have assailed their being implicated for offences punishable under Section 186/506/323/353/34, Indian Penal Code (In short IPC). The circumstances leading to their implication are that at Bhairon Road-Mathura.Road T'Pouit Constable Hukam Singh was assaulted and criminal force was used and other police officials who arrived at the spot were insulted. Constable Hukam Singh's statement was recorded which ultimately became the FIR. Challan was filed. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short 'MM') took cognizance. It is against the order of summoning and charge that the present petition has been filed. The order of taking cognizance by the learned M.M. has been assailed primarily on the ground that there is a complete bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short the Cr.P.C.) for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 186, Indian Penal Code by the Court. The grievance of the petitioners is that no written complaint as...

i.J. Sharma Vs. Dr. P.S. Jain

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts alleged in the complaint are that on the basis of an advertisement in a leading English news paper the complainant contacted Medical Council of India, New Delhi for admission of his daughter Manisha Sharma to the under-graduate course in Medical Institute in USSR. The opposite party, who is running an office under the name and style of M/s. Indo Soviet Medical Education Care and Research Foundation, contacted the complainant and offered his services to arrange visa and payment for studies in USSR on payment of Rs. 2.50 lacs. The complainant arranged a sum of Rs. 2.40 lacs with great difficulty and paid the same to the opposite party in four instalments. Complainants daughter was sent to USSR by the complainant in October, 91. According to the understanding referred to above the opposite party was required to pay for the entire medical course but he failed to pay the dues. Complainants daughter, accordingly, wrote to her father about the same. Th...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat High Tech Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1160TriDel

1. In this appeal the issue raised for determination is as to whether sulphate resistant Cement manufactured by the respondents was classifiable under heading 2502.20 or 2502.90.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cement. One of the qualities of cement manufactured by the respondents is termed as 'Sulphate Resistant' Cement. The respondents submitted the classification list claiming classification of 'sulphate resistant portland cement' under Chapter Heading 2502.20.The Department alleged that this was a special grade cement and was not covered by the entry against Chapter Heading 2502.20 but should come under Chapter Heading 2502.90. The Assistant Collector held that the 'sulphate resistant portland cement' was classifiable under Chapter Heading 2502.90. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) held that 'sulphate resistant cement' manufactured by the respondents herein was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 2502.20. Against t...

Prestige Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT593TriDel

1. The common appellant entered into an agreement dated 28-11-1978 with Malaysian supplier for supply of Dried Copra at US $ 570 PMT C & F. His application for licence having been rejected, he approached the High Court of Delhi for relief. The High Court on 24-2-1984 directed issue of a licence. On 13-3-1985 the licensing authority issued a licence subject to three conditions, namely, that there, shall be no amendment in price and other terms of the agreement, that the contract should be valid for shipment of goods on the date of issue of licence and the licence should be subject to the provisions given in Paragraph 73(3) of the Import and Export Policy, 1984-85 Volume I. Import was effected in six different consignments in October, 1987 purportedly at the contract price US $ 200 PMT CIF. The invoice price was accepted and duty assessed. Appellant paid the duty and cleared the goods. Thereafter they filed refund claim in respect of the consignments contending that the ruling price...

Spencer Consumer Products and Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT663TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Spencer Consumer Products and Services Ltd. (herein after referred to as SCP) being aggrieved with two separate orders-in-appeal both passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. Both these appeals relate to common questions and they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. The matter was heard on 22-5-1996, when Shri G. Shiva Dass, the learned Advocate briefly stated the facts. There is no dispute that SCP and M/s. Spencer and Company Ltd. (herein referred as SCL) were related persons for the purposes of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act). SCP were engaged in the manufacture of various products including Squashes and Syrups and the goods were assessed at the price at which SCL were selling the products in the wholesale market. The learned Advocate stated that the specially designed printed cardboard cartons for stacking 12 bottles in each cartons were supplied by SCL free to th...

Delhi Outdoor Advertisers Ass. Vs. M.C.D.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi43; 4(1996)DLT63

ORDER1. By this application the petitioners' seek restoration of status quo ante as on 27-3-1996 by directing the respondent-MCD to permit display of advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land. This application has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners have no right to display advertisement hoardings on the Municipal land without obtaining licences under the DMC Act.2. Brief facts leading to filing of this application are that the petitioners have filed the Civil Writ Petition No. 1288/96 in this Court challenging certain amendments proposed to be incorporated in the existing bye-laws to regulate the trade of advertisement hoardings. Along with the writ petition the petitioners also filed an application (CM 2445/96) for interim relief. After hearing the parties, following order was passed by this Court on 27-3-1996:'CW 1288/96 Notice to the respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and se...

Hem Lata Vs. Collector of Stamps

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1997Delhi63; 63(1996)DLT198; 1996(38)DRJ132

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner prays for quashing of the order of the first respondent dated January 29, 1996. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:-(2) The Dda by a deed dated April 16, 1990 leased a piece of land measuring 3,650 acres situated at Mayur Vihar to respondent No.2 Parwana Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (for short 'the society'). Over this piece of land, the society constructed flats for its members with the funds contributed by them. Flat No.A-37 was allotted by the society in the joint names of Prashant Kumar Roy and Pranab Roy. On February 2, 1995, the aforesaid allottees entered into an agreement with the petitioner whereby the former agreed to sell their rights in the flat to the latter for a consideration of Rs.5,51,000.00 which stands paid by the petitioner to the allottees. The allottees appointed and constituted Mr.Ramesh Chandra, husband of the petitioner, as their lawful General Attorney author...

S.C. Sabharwal Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)251; 64(1996)DLT788; 1996(39)DRJ807

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 19th April, 1993 the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against respondents 1 & 2 not to proceed with the inquiry which was initiated through letter dated 16.3.1993 into the charges leveled against the petitioner through memo dated 28.8.1992. (2) The main and primary grounds on which the petitioner sought the reliefs are the inordinate delay of eight years in issuing charge sheet, alleging that while incident had taken place in August 1985, the first letter was received by the petitioner inquiring about the alleged incident on 16.4.1990 and calling upon him to reply to certain queries to which the petitioner submitted his reply in June, 1990. Respondents slept over the matter for another 2 and 1/4th years and issued charge sheet only on 28.8.1992. Due to inordinate delay defense of the petitioner was likely to be prejudiced, on account of retirement of many officials f...

Atree Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)769; 1996(38)DRJ493

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The Petitioner M/s Atree Associates and the Delhi Development Authority entered into a contract with reference to the work of providing water supply, sanitary installations and internal development in Poeket-BD, Block -B, Janakpuri, New Delhi. (2) Disputes arose between them and they were referred to Shri S.C Kaushal, Se (Arbitralion)-II, for adjudication. The Arbitrator passed the award on 20th September 1994 allowing a few claims and rejecting the rest and awarded interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 3rd June 1993 to 30th May 1994 towards the pendentelite interest. (3) The Delhi Development Authority filed objection vide is No. 1440/95. Mr. V.K. Sharma learned counsel for the Delhi Development Authority rendering real assistance to the court made submission with reference to Claims Nos 1,2,3,9,17, 18 and 19. Mr. Sharma was very thorough in his preparation and he could easily make me to appreciate the real controversy in the matter. (4) The brief facts of th...