Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Jg Vacuum Flask Limited Vs. Eagle Flask (P) Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)258; 1996(26)ARBLR518(Delhi); 70(1997)DLT255; 1996(39)DRJ43

Devinder Gupta, J. (1) This is a petition for cancellation of registration design No-154305 in class 3 dated 16th April, 1984 in the name of respondent No. 1 filed under Section 51A of the Designs Act, 1911. (2) It is alleged that respondent No. 1 filed a suit No.10/95 in the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners on the basis of its registered design No. 154305 dated 16th April, 1984. (3) The petitioner in that suit alleged that the design registered under No.154305 is not valid and is opposed to basic principles of design law, being a copy of a German model, well known in India. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Chinchawad, Pune and petitioner No.2 is a seller of petitioner No. 1's product in Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of vacuum flasks and refills for the past several years. B...

inderjit Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)202; 65(1997)DLT70

Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) The petitioner through the present writ petition has sought a direction from this Court directing the respondents to allot him an industrial plot in an industrial area in Delhi. (2) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is running an agricultural industry at 902/290, Village Shalimar, Delhi since the year 1974-75. He is manufacturing over there agricultural instruments such as pipes, pipe fittings, tube-well parts etc. The above said area where the petitioner is running his factory is a non-conforming area. The respondent No. 1 announced their decision to give an opportunity to the industries functioning in the non-conforming areas or areas which were under acquisition for different public purposes to secure a plot of land in conforming industrial areas which have been developed by the respondent No. 1 in different localities of Delhi in accordance with the provisions of the Master Plan. The applications were required...

Surinder K. Vij Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT84; 1996RLR504

N.G. Nandi, J. (1) In this petition u/Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner (accused) in the complaint filed u/Secs. 193, 199, 209 Ipc, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi prays for quashing the process issued. (2) The facts leading to the filing of this petition, as suggested from the record, shortly stated, are that a complaint was filed by one Ranvir Malik son of late Shri S.S. Malik against the petitioner alleging offences u/Section 193,199 and 209 Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate; that the said complaint, by order dated 30.9.1991, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was dismissed on the ground that the Additional Rent Controller was a 'Court' within the meaning of Section 175 of the Code and the complaint having not been filed on the complaint of the Additional Rent Controller, was found to be bad in law; that against the said order of dismissal of the complaint respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision applicat...

Mahinder Pal JaIn Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhry, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has been having two electric connections No. 308086 (power) and 304724 (light). It appears that on 10.3.1983 an inspection was carried out by the officials of DESU and they reported certain irregularities with regard to the connected load and the use in contravention of conditions of supply. Misuse charges i.e. normal charges with surcharge was levied. It further appears that the appellant challenged the levy of surcharge in the Civil Court. The suit was decided in his favour on 14.12.1988. The grievance of the appellant was that inspite of decision of the Civil Court the bills continued to be raised arbitrarily and the same were excessive, not based on meter reading regarding actual consumption. His further case was that he was not liable to pay the minimum charges on the basis of sanctioned load and the supply had been dis-connected on the ground of non-payment of bills without serving the mandatory show caus...

Hira Cold Storage and Ice Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT334TriDel

1. On Excise Reference No. 103/88 filed under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short, the Act), High Court of Rajasthan directed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, the CEGAT) to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the Supreme Court within a period of 90 days from the submission of the certified copy of the order, evidently under Section 35H of the Act.2. The Order-in-Original No. 9/79, dated 6-6-1979 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur was challenged before the CEGAT.The Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur held that M/s. Hira Cold Storage and Ice Factory, Jaipur (appellants before the Tribunal and applicant before the High Court) and M/s. Rajasthan Farms and Food Products, Jaipur had contravened Rules 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and rendered themselves liable to penal action under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Rules. The Collector also imposed on both the part...

Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT508TriDel

1. The dispute in this appeal relates to availment of Modvat credit by the appellants on inputs viz. aluminium alloy, used in the manufacture of their final products, namely, vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). The contours of the dispute and the findings .thereon by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore, have been set out in the impugned order dated 20-12-1991 of that authority as follows : "The Assistant Commissioner has disallowed credit of Rs. 1,16,178.57 in respect of aluminium ingots in these cases on the ground that the inputs coming to the factory of the appellant. On this point, the appellants have pleaded that as per Trade Notice No. 38/86, dated 17-7-1986 issued by the Indore Commissionerate raw material/semi-finished goods can be sent either directly or otherwise for availing credit under rule 57F (2). I am not in agreement with the appellant's stand. From the records, I find that M/s. BALCO Ltd. Korba despatched 11.550 M.T...

Modipon Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT289TriDel

1. This appeal along with Appeal No. 2894/93-NB of the same appellants, which is also taken up today, alongwith this appeal, involves the same issue of Modvat credit. The lower authorities had denied Modvat credit on input Dowtherm Dephyl used in the manufacture of nylon polyester filament yarn produced by the appellants, herein. The lower authorities have held that the input is a device for supplying heat and is, therefore, excluded from the scope of inputs under Rule 57A under which inputs, which are in the nature of machines, machinery, equipment and tools, will not be eligible for Modvat credit under that rule. In both the cases, the orders of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner have been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order leading to the present appeals.2. Ld. Counsel, Ms. Malini Sood for the appellant, submitted that it is evident from the finding given by the Assistant Commissioner himself that the use of Dowtherm Dephyl is essential for the manufac...

Radhey Shyam Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)497; 1997(1)Crimes69; 63(1996)DLT955; 1996(38)DRJ648

Arun Kumar, J.(1) The appellants are parents of a young girl who was aged about 6/7 years at the time of the incident. They have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi under sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of their daughter. The admitted position is that Rekha daughter of appellants died due to fall in the river Yamuna from the old Yamuna bridge at about 10.30 P.M. on 29th May, 1989. The prosecution case is that the appellants had intentionally thrown Rekha .in the river to get rid of her because she was a handicapped child, her right leg having been amputated near the knee, as a result of which the appellants allegedly believed that her marriage would not be possible. On the other hand according to the appellants Rekha fell in the river on account of an accidental slip from the lap of her mother, appellant No.2. In their statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code . the stand of the appellants was that they were coming on,a scooter driven by ap...

D.D.A. Vs. G.S. Chatwal and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as follows : 2.The seven respondents are allottees of D.D.A. flats in Prasad Nagar, New Delhi. The supply of water was taken over by D.D.A. The Executive Engineer asked the respondents as well as other allottees of D.D.A. flats to deposit Rs. 100/- each as water security. The amounts were deposited. One Mr. S.L. Bhargav challenged the deposit as not warranted by law. He filed a complaint before the D.F. By order dated 3.7.90 the D.F. directed the opposite party D.D.A. to refund the said amount of Rs. 100/-. No interest or compensation was allowed. Aggrieved by the order the complainant, Mr. S.L. Bhargav, filed appeal No. A-113/90. The appeal was allowed by this Commission by its order dated 13.11.90. This Commission allowed 10% interest on the amount of security from the date of deposit till it was refunded. Against the order of this Commission D.D.A.s revision petition was dismissed on 12.9.91 and agains...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Ganesh Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT58TriDel

1. In the captioned six appeals the only issue for determination is whether the invoices/challans issued by the Depots of M/s IOC Ltd. at various places are duty-paying documents for the purpose of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein were issued demand show-cause notice by the department on the ground that they have taken Modvat credit on the strength of duty paid certificate given by the Indian Oil Corp. on their invoice-cum-challan issued from their Depots at Mathura, Ambala and Shakurbasti. The Department alleged that in terms of Trade Notice No. [68/86-CE.,] dated 23-12-1986 and Trade Notice No. 33/92 dated 4-8-1992, M/s Indian Oil Corp. is not authorised to certify the duty paid character of the inputs on challans issued by them as M/s. IOC Ltd. are not the authorised canalising agency. The Asstt. Collector held that on the strengh of these challans, Modvat credit cannot be allowed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appea...