Delhi Court July 1996 Judgments

Ratan @ Ram Ratan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1996)BC180; 1996(38)DRJ342

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) By order dated 12th February, 1996, the petitioner was admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. On an application having been filed by the petitioner for reducing the surety amount, the Court vide order dated 26th February, 1996 directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000.00 each instead of one surety of Rs. 5,00,00.00 .(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for reduction in the surety amount on the averments that he is a poor tailor, permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and he will not be in a position to furnish two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000.00 each and he, thereforee, prays for reduction in the surety amount.(3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that the amount of sureties which the petitioner has been directed to furnish is too harsh and the whole purpose of his being admitted to bail has been fr...

Ram Dhar Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997CriLJ292; 63(1996)DLT555; II(1996)DMC173; 1996(38)DRJ443

Arun Kumar, J. (1) Sumitra received burn injuries on 5th December, 1987 at about 1:00 p.m. in her jhuggi at Kathputli Colony, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi. She was aged about 35 years. She had been married to Ram Dhar for about 20-22 years. They had a son named Sonia who was at that time aged about 12 years. She was admitted in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi soon after the incident. Asi Hari Singh, 1.0. reached the hospital on the basis of a D.D. entry No.l6-A (Ex. Public Witness -1/D) recorded at Police Station Patel Nagar. The Dd entry shows that Constable Ombir Singh had informed through telephone from Dr. R.M.L. Hospital that a lady had been admitted in the hospital in burnt condition. The Asi recorded the statement of Sumitra in the hospital in which she stated that her husband Ram Dhar, the appellant herein had thrown burning stove on her as result whereof her clothes caught fire. She stated certain other things in her said statement to which we will advert to later on. Ram...

Bhullan and anr. Vs. Jasmer Kaur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(1997)ACC311

Usha Mehra, J.1. By this order cross objections filed by the respondent (claimant before the Trial Court) are being disposed.2. Shri Gurcharan Singh husband of respondent No. 1 Jasmer Kaur and father of respondents 2 to 5 i.e. Smt. Kartar Kaur, S. Gurdev Singh, S. Tirlochan Singh and S. Baldev Singh was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 8th June 1973. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim alleging rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Truck No. UPP-1505. In the said claim petition they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. By the impugned judgment dated 22nd September, 1979 the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) awarded Rs. 68,260/- as compensation to the claimants and restricted the liability of Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- owner and driver of the truck felt aggrieved and filed the appeal which was listed as FAO No. 261/79. The same has already been dismissed. In that appeal cross objections wer...

Ghamalu Ram Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)892; 63(1996)DLT819; 1996(39)DRJ399

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) This appeal by Ghamalu Ram is directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.4.93 convicting him u/s 302 Indian Penal Code and also the order dated 20.4.93 sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000.00 . In default of payment a fine he was to further under to Si for three months.(2) Case of the prosecution as 'borne out from the chargesheet filed u/s 173 CrPC, in brief, is that on 4.6.86 at about 10.25 Pm an unknown person informed on phone that a quarrel is going on at house no. 20/83 Kalyan Puri. This information was recorded in the Dd at Seriall no. 58B and a copy thereof was sent to Si Gulshan Kumar, Public Witness 23 for enquiry. Public Witness 23 along with constables Mahesh Chand, Public Witness 1, Kanta Prasad, Keshav Kumar, Public Witness 20, and Hc Ishwari Dutt reached the said place. There Public Witness 23 found Paras Ram lying in a pool of blood. He was having injury on the left side of the neck. Paras Ra...

thermax Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT178TriDel

1. These two appeals arising out of common order in Appeal No. 531/88 BCH, dated 21-1-1988 were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported Tin-plated caps vide Bill of Entry 2594, dated 22-7-1983. These were assessed under Heading 73.33/40 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate of 100%+35%+CVD 10% under Tariff Item 68.The appellants after clearance of the goods filed refund claim before the lower authorities claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification 30/81-Cus., dated 1-3-1981. The Lower authorities held that Notification No. 30/81-Cus. dated 1-3-1981 did not cover the impugned goods classifiable under heading 73.33/40. The appellants have also not produced end-use certificate. The concession was therefore denied. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence this Appeal.3. The ld. D.R. submits that SI. No. 9 allows exemption to caps provides these are classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 69...

Collector of C. Excise Vs. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT101TriDel

1. The issue for determination in these appeals is whether duty can be charged when single ply yarn comes into existence at spindle point or duty should be charged after the yarn is subjected to winding, doubling, reeling etc.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The department alleged that as soon as the single ply yarn comes into existence at the spindle stage, it was fully manufactured and therefore, duty should be demanded at the spindle stage and not at the stage after winding, doubling, reeling etc. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why duty should not be charged on the yarn at the spindle stage. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents herein submitted that the process of manufacture as contemplated in Section 2(f) is complete only when an item comes into existence with definite identity and pleaded that the process of winding, doubling, re...

India United Mill No. 6 Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT79TriDel

1. By the present appeal, the appellants have contested the decision of the learned Collector (Appeals) holding that benefit of Notification No. 251/82 in respect "controlled shirting" during the period February and March, 1984 was not available to the appellants on the ground that "controlled shirting" did not include the blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various types of cloth including controlled shirting. The Department alleged that since controlled shirting manufactured by the appellants had a blend of 48% polyester and 52% cotton, therefore, this blend was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 251/82, dated 8-11-1982.3. Shri Dinesh H. Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that fabrics have been defined in Clause (vi) of Notification No. 251/82 that will be eligible for concession!. He submits that controlled shirting is specifically included...

Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT674TriDel

1. By the present application, the applicants have sought modification of the Stay Order No. 27/96-C, dated 25-4-1996.2. Shri A.P. Mathur, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that there have been fresh development accentuating the cash crunch on the applicants. He submits that in pursuance of the order of the Apex Court, they had to pay a huge amount as arrears of electricity bill because of revision of the rates retrospectively. The ld. Counsel submitted that Reserve Bank of India recently issued directions by which the liquidity of the applicants and the availability of the amount from sundry debtors has suffered. The ld. Counsel also submitted that the applicants are manufacturer of BHC Insecticide and the Government stopped further manufacture of this product and have given directions to the applicants to dispose of stock of this product by March, 1997. The ld. Counsel, therefore, prayed that in view of these happenings together they did not have liquidity en...

R.N. Tiwari Vs. A.S. Saxena

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)779; 63(1996)DLT678; 1996(38)DRJ451

K. Ramamoorthy, J. (1) The Plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance against defendants I and 2. The third defendant is a Cooperative Housing Society. (2) According to the plaintiff on 28.11.1995 the plaintiff had entered into an agreement for purchasing the property bearing Flat No. 46, Desh Bandhu Co-operative Housing Society, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi, with defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs. According to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.l lakh was paid in cash. The balance to be paid within 90 days. On 24.2.1996 the plaintiff sent a registered notice 'calling upon defendants 1 and 2 to perform their part of the contract. The defendants sent a registered notice wherein they had falsely alleged that they intended to register all necessary documents in favor of the plaintiff on or before 28.2.1996 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Shahdara. On the basis of that registered notice the plaintiff was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar,...

Lamber Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal together with dispensation application has been filed against the Adjudication Order No. SDE(R) V/8-12/92, dated 24-3-1992 under which a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') on the allegations contained in a show-cause notice No. 1, dated 14-11-1990. In his application seeking dispensation from pre-deposit of the amount of penalty the appellant has stated that he deals in sale and purchase of buffalo and does agriculture on rental basis and his annual income therefrom is about Rs. 20,000, that he is not assessed by the income-tax or wealth-tax, that he has no movable or immovable property in India and that his cash in hand is about Rs. 6,500 and the balance in Kapurthala Central Bank was Rs. 104 at the close of business on 7-4-1992. Shri Vikas Duggal, the learned counsel for the appellant started that the appellant's financial position has gon...