Delhi Court July 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.
Lakshman Exports Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(66)LC752Tri(Delhi)
1. (i) These appeals arises from an order in-original dt. 13.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, by which he has directed confiscation of the seized goods and granted option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/- and to pay appropriate amount of duty on its further clearances. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the contravention of the various rules cited in the show-cause notice alleging manufacture and clandestine removal of goods from the appellant's factory. The Revenue is aggreived to the extent of that portion of order in which the Addl.Collector has failed to take legal notice of the fact that once clandestine removal are held to have been established, the duty amounting to Rs. 3,71,750.40 payable on the goods so removed, should have been demanded from the party which he has failed to do. The Revenue is also aggreived on Additional Collector having not imposed any personal penalty on the owner of the truck h...
Shiva Tobacco Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT177TriDel
1. The Assistant Collector, Ambala passed an order confirming the demands made in four show cause notices against the appellant and the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeals filed against the order by the Manufacturer-assessee. Hence the present Appeal by the manufacturer.2. The appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and branded Hooka tobacco filed price lists No. 18/79, dated 23-4-1979 and No. 39/79, dated 13-9-1979 declaring that the entire production was being sold to M/s. Shiva Sales Corporation at a trade discount of 12 1/2%. They were approved subject to verification of the invoices of the buyer. Price lists were filed for the subsequent periods also. The Superintendent of Central Excise issued four show cause notices dated 3-11-1982 for the period 6-10-1979 to 31-10-1982 under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for short, the Act and dated 4-1-1983, 5-3-1983 and 18-4-1983 for the subsequent periods stating that the veri...
Hukam Singh Rajendra Singh and Co. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT516TriDel
1. Since common questions arise for consideration in these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 3204/90-A relates to import of Apricot by the appellant therein, while the other appeals relate to import of Raisin abjosh variety or raisin red or raisin green variety. In the case of three imports covered by Appeal Nos. 3013/90, 3077/90 and 3079/90 the Assistant Collector found excess weight in the consignments and levied duty on the excess also. In all the appeals relating to raisin the Assistant Collector rejected the invoice price of US $ 0.90 per kg. and assessed the value at US $ 1.10 per kg. In the case of Apricot also, he fixed the same value. On the basis of value so fixed, it was found that there was shortfall in the licence in each of the cases. On these grounds he found that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but allowed redemption on payment of fine fixed in each of...
Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. T. Bala Chandran and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT155
Lokeshwar Prasad, J. (1) M/S Goodwill India Limited, the petitioner, have filed the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer that ' Hire Purchase Agreement' dated the 5th March, 1988, containing the arbitration clause be ordered to be filed in the Court and the disputes/differences, mentioned in the petition, be referred for decision to the sole Arbitrator Sh. Raj Paul Sagar, Advocate. It is averred that the petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at E-13/ 29, Connaught Place, New Delhi, carrying on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles in the different parts of the Union territory, hired out a motor vehicle T.D.V., Wheel Base 166', Model 1984, bearing Engine No. 692.D03.1.89964, Chassis No.344.050.1.82187 bearing Registration No.,KLG8393,torespondentNo.lunder Hire Purchase Agreement dated the 5th March, 1988 as hirer and respondent No. Z signed the sai...
The East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Jyoti (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)242; 1996(38)DRJ73
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This order shall govern the disposal of FAO(OS) 115/96 and 116/96 Filed by the same appellant against the same respondents. (2) Suit 1808-A/95 was Filed by the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator relying upon a loan agreement dated 8.8.1980, wherein the respondent had agreed to pay certain amount to the appellant. Suit No. 622- A/95 was filed by the respondent seeking appointment of an arbitrator relying upon a hotel operation agreement where under the appellant had agreed to carry on hotel business in the premises of the respondent. The learned Single Judge has allowed both the prayers and appointed Mr Justice G.C. Jain, retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator. All the disputes between the parties under the loan agreement as well as the hotel operation agreement and all the claims and counter-claims of the parties have been referred to him. By the same order, the learned Single Judge has rejected I.A. 7955/95 whereon an ex-parte interim injunction was g...
B.B. Verma Vs. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)589; 63(1996)DLT447; 1996(38)DRJ315
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 29.6.1993, rendered by the sole arbitrator Mr. K.N. Taneja have been filed by the contractor/claimant, mainly contending that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit/petition under Section 14-17 of the Act for making the award rule of the court, also on the ground that the arbitrator has misconducted himself as well as the proceedings inasmuch as the award of Rs.3,87,792.00 is on a lump-sum basis, without slating as to which of the claim has been allowed and which has been disallowed and that the learned arbitrator has not stated in the award whether the counter-claim filed by the claimant/objector is allowed or rejected, if allowed to what extent. (2) It is 'suggested that the disputes in connection with the execution of the work of 'construction of roads, bridges and nullah crossings (Package-G)' for Riband Su...
Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (India) Co. Vs. Italgrani S.P.a
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996(38)DRJ309
N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In this Petition under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner prays for a decree of declaration to the effect that there exists no legal binding and subsisting arbitration agreement between respondent No.1 and the petitioner firm or that any such alleged agreement is not valid or binding on the petitioner and that respondent No.2 is not entitled to enter upon the reference or proceed with the arbitration in regard to disputes referred to by respondent No.1, arising out of the contract dated 12.5.1994. (2) The facts leading to the filing of this petition, as set out in the petition, shortly stated are, that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act; that respondent No.2 is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy having its registered office at Nepals Italy, whereas respondent No. 2 is a Trade Organization, having its office at London (UK); tha...
Domier Luftfahrt Gmbh Vs. K.C.V. Airways
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)699; 63(1996)DLT874; 1996(39)DRJ411
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) By this order, I would be disposing of an application No. 1199/96 moved by the plaintiff seeking inter alias ex parte interim mandatory direction for return of the Dornier 228-202 Aircraft leased to the defendant in terms of the lease agreement dated 23-7-1994. (2) The above application has been filed in a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction under the Specific Relief Act. The above suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 3-2- 1996. The suit had come up before the Court on 5- 2-1996, when plaintiff was directed to produce proof of service of the notice of termination of the agreement and place on record documents and the correspondence, relied on in suit. On 7-2- 1996, on the apprehension of the plaintiff that the defendant would cannibalize the Aircraft and remove and/or replace valuable parts, the Court restrained the carrying out of annual maintenance by the defendant on 7-2-1996. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 8-2-1996 and...
Prabhat Kumar Vs. the Liberhan Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT671
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) The petitions, six in number, raise a common question, which can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners in each of the petitions have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for setting aside the impugned order, Annexure F, dated 4.8.1995 passed by the Liber han Ayodhya Commission of Inquiry (for short 'the Commission') and for quashing of notice, Annexure C, dated 28.4.1995 issued under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act No. 60 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Sections of the Act, after forming an opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance, namely, destruction of Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid Structure at Ayodhya (for short 'the Structure') on 6.12.1992, appointed Justice Shri Manmohan...
Nirmal Kumar Sharma Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)362; 1996(38)DRJ93
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The petitioner is the subscriber of telephone No. 2242635 which has been disconnected on 22.11.1994. He seeks restoration of the telephone connection. According to the petitioner the telephone has been disconnected for the recovery of some dues outstanding in respect of telephone No. 2227379 of Shri S.L. Sharma, the earlier subscriber of the petitioner's telephone. It is submitted that the petitioner's telephone cannot be disconnected for recovery of such dues.(2) According to the respondent the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands . He has distorted the facts and made material concealment of important and relevant facts. It is pointed out that Shri S.L, Sharma was the subscriber of telephone No. 2242635. Shri S.L. Sharma is the father of the petitioner and both are living in the same house. At one point of lime telephone No. 2242635 and 2227395 were both in the name of Shri S.L, Sharma. He had defaulted in making the payment of Rs. 23061.00 outstan...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »