Delhi Court May 1996 Judgments

Prem Nath Monga Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jainco Industries an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1996)BC43; 63(1996)DLT102; (1996)114PLR1

Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) This order will dispose of an application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order Ix, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter refered to as 'the CPC'). (2) The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application lie in a narrow compass. The plain tiff has filed the (3) The defendants have filed the above mentioned application with a prayer that ex-parte proceedings initiated against the defendants vide order dated 22nd January, 1996 be set aside and the defendants be given the opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case on merits. (4) Reply to the above mentioned application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the reply filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been stated that the defendants have been adopting dilatory and evasive tactics merely to prolong the litigation and die non appearance on the part of the defendants is deliberate and intentional and not due to any...

Sukhwant Singh Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)77; 1996CriLJ4079; 1996(38)DRJ299

Usha Mehra, J. (1) This petitioner was charged with three offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1988'). The first charge against him is that he accepted gratification for providing safe passage to one Shri Partap Singh for smuggling of gold. Secondly he agreed to provide safe passage to one Shri Charan Singh for smuggling of weapons from Pakistan, who had a design to purchase Naka to smuggle weapons from Pakistan. Thirdly the petitioner voluntarily omitted to inform about the said design to his superior officer. Proceedings before General Security Force Court were held under the Border Security Force Act,1968. After affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the proceeding of conviction was submitted. Authority sentenced the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and also dismissed from service. This sentence was confirmed by the appropriate authority. It is against this conviction and sentenc...

Ratna Sagar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Trisea Publications and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(1)ARBLR30(Delhi); 64(1996)DLT539

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The Applicant M/s. Ratna Sagar Private Limited has filed the suit claiming the following reliefs : '(i) For an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, assigns, employees, successors, servants, etc. from publishing, printing, selling, offering for sale, and/or otherwise dealing with or disposing, or causing or permitting to be published, printed, sold, delivered or otherwise disposing of any copies or copy of the book titled ' Unique SCIENCE' Volumes-111, Iv and V, published by defendant No. I and edited by Defendants 2 and 3 or publishing and/ or offering for sale any other book which is an infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff in its books titled 'LIVING SCIENCE' Volumes-111, Iv and V. (ii) For an order for permanent injunction directing the defendants to withdraw all copies of the work/books titled 'UNIQUE SCIENCE' Volumes Iii, Iv and V and destroy the same Along with all stocks, proofs, negatives, publicity materials, ...

H.K.L. Bhagat Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)13; 1996CriLJ3529; 1996(37)DRJ574

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) Lord Acton in his Essays On Freedom (1948) said that the 'most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by Minorities' We, as a nation, failed the test in November 1984 when thousands of innocent members of a minority community were subjected to murder, loot and arson. The petitioner H.K.L.Bhagat is alleged to be one of those persons involved in the butchery. He is facing trial in two of such cases pending before 'an Additional Sessions Judge. His grievance is that the learned Judge is biased against the politicians in general and against him in particular and that driven by that bias he has not only been passing 'unsavory' remarks against him but has also been importing material not relied upon by either side. It is also his grievance that he is not being shown any accommodation and that the learned Judge has been rushing through the cases in undue haste giving thereby an impression that he is in a great hur...

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT368TriDel

1. Appellant imported Thyris-tor Fuses and the goods were assessed and duty paid and cleared. Duty was levied on the basis that the goods attracted Tariff Item 85.18/27(1). Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods fall under Tariff Item 85.18/27(3) for which rate of duty is less. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim. Hence, the present appeal. Appellant is not present in spite of notice. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers. "Electrical apparatus for making and breaking electrical circuits, for the protection of electrical circuits or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; resistors; switch-boards and control panels : Provided that the articles are designed for use in circuits of 400 volts or above, or of 20 amperes or above or for use with motors of 1.5 kilowatts or above." 3. Item 85.18/27(1) will apply only if clause (3) of the sub-heading is not attracted. There can be no d...

Meera Luthra Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)LC190Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellant, while she was abroad purchased a second hand Volvo Car (manufactured in 1985) and imported it in the first week of June 1988.The invoice price was 250. The Assistant Collector was not prepared to accept the invoice price as the genuine price. Show cause notice was waived. The appellant did not produce the manufacturer's price list.The Assistant Collector had the world car catalogue with him. According to the world car catalogue the particular model car was priced 5971.00 (inclusive VAT and Car Tax). The Assistant Collector adopted this price, deducted depreciation for the period in question, added the cost of accessories and determined the value which was Rs. 94,145/-.Differential duty was accordingly demanded. The appellant filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) and produced what purported to be manufacturer's price list as also manufacturer's letters dated 26-9-1988 and 9-5-1989. The Collector (Appeals) held that VAT and Car Tax had to be deducted from the worl...

Jayashree Insulators Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT82TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Jayashree Insulators Ltd. Rishra being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 30-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. The matter relates to the valuation of the insulators made of porcelain when they were supplied with the Galvanised Iron (GI) pins.GI Pins were bought out items and on the orders of the customers were supplied separately and invoiced separately. The Revenue had alleged by issuing six separate show cause notices for different periods that the cost of GI Pins should be taken into account for determining duty liability of the insulators. The period involved in these six notices is from 1975 to 30-4-1983. Prior to 1-4-1979, the insulators were classifiable under Item No. 23B of the Central Excise Tariff and with effect from 1-4-1979 by virtue of insertion of Explanation II under Entry No. 23B they became classifiable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector who had adjudi...

Engee Industrial Services P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT152TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) extending by six months the period for issue of the show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act in respect of goods seized by him.2. The contention that the appeal is not maintainable has been rejected in the earlier order which has been recalled and the contention is not being pursued at this stage.3. The goods were seized at Taloja in Raigad District of Maharashtra State. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Taloja is in Taluka Panval of District Raigad which, according to Shri T.R.Malik, SDR is the new name for the erstwhile Kolabe District. The seizure was effected by Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay under the belief that the goods in question which were imported by a ship at Mangalore Port for breaking up were partly removed clandestinely and partly removed...

income-tax Officer Vs. Rajan Mathur

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is a Departmental appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90, against the order dt. 22nd January, 1993, passed by the Dy. CIT(A), New Delhi. Two points are involved in this appeal. The first is with regard to the allowances of expenses of Rs. 42,151 from out of the total incentive commission of Rs. 1,05,378 received from his masters M/s. Modi Zerox Ltd. The assessee is an employee with M/s. Modi Zerox Ltd. since April, 1988 and in the relevant accounting year which ended by 31st March, 1989, he was designated as Major Accounts Manager engaged in selling of photocopying machines manufactured by the employer-company. The salary certificate which was issued by the employer-company to the assessee was not produced before this Tribunal. However, the assessee himself admitted that one Shri S. K. Taing, Dehradun was one of his colleagues employed in the same company and assessed by ITO Ward-3, Dehradun, and his assessment order for 1988-89 passed by the ITO Ward-3, Dehradun dt.28th March, 1990, wa...

G.S. Fateh Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1996Delhi358

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1. Thepresent Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, against the judgment and order dated 30-3-1971 passed by S. Rangarajan, J. in writ petition No. 321-D/61, quashing the order of the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) Mr. R. A. Avasthi dated 13th January, 1961 and that of the Deputy Custodian General Mr. Y. L. Taneja, dated 11th April, 1961 and 27th April, 1961.2. Brief facts which are necessary to appreciate the controversy involved in the case are recapitulated as under:--3. The dispute between the parties in theinstant case relates to 8 plots Nos. 1142, 1143, 1152, 1156, 1309, 1114, 1332, 1344, situated in village Galibpur, District Muzaffarnagar, U. P.4. Two persons, namely, Mohd. Zikriya and Mohd. Khan were the tenants of the plots mentioned above. The tenancy rights of these persons were taken over as Evacuee Property under the U. P. Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance No. 1 of 1949.5. Zahid Hussain, respon...