Delhi Court August 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.
Gabs Poly Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT525TriDel
1. The captioned appeal assails the decision of the Collector (Appeals) holding that Modvat credit taken on the gate pass endorsed after 31-3-1994 was not admissible and that proviso to Rule 57G(2) mentions about duty-paying documents to be either an invoice issued under Rule 52A or the one prescribed by the Central Government and that invoice on the stength of which Modvat credit has been taken by the appellants was neither.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of resin poly buttons blanks. They purchased inputs from the market and were availing Modvat credit facility under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after complying with the provisions of Rule 57G. The dispute arose in respect of 3 items. The items are at serial Nos. 1, 5 and 7 of Annexure A to the show cause notice. The dispute was that GP Is was endorsed in the two cases on or after 1st April, 1994 and that Modvat credit was taken on the basis of these endorsed GP. 1. The al...
Prasant Glass Works P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT518TriDel
1. Appellants imported one consignment of 20,000 Gross Bolt Ring (Spring Ring) and 5,00,000 number of Chain of Hongkong origin from a Hongkong supplier and presented a Bill of Entry dated 11-8-1989 through the Clearing Agent at the declared value of HK $ 1.00 per gross of Bolt Ring and HK $ 7.3 for 100 Meters of Chain. On objection being raised about the value, appellants waived show cause notice but gave written submissions. Representative samples were also taken and weighed. The additional Collector accepted the declared value in relation to Bolt Ring but loaded the value of Chain from HK $ 7.3 per 100 Meters to Rs. 56.36 per kg. weight. This order is now challenged.2. The Additional Collector noticed that in regard to chain, unlike in the previous importation, specification and design number of the chain had not been declared by the appellants. On weighment and calculation it was found that the declared value was Rs. 25.58 per kg. which was even less than the price of Rs. 28.18 per...
Forvol Tours and Transport Services Ltd. Vs. Sunrise Air Services
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)957; 64(1996)DLT422; 2003(39)DRJ173
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This is an application filed by the defendants under Order xxxvii Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the decree passed by this court on 17.5.1994 and also for allowing the defendants to defend the suit on merits. (2) The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendants under Order xxxvii of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs.13,13,230.74 from the defendants. Summons having been issued in the aforesaid suit the same were served on the defendants on 17.9.1993. The defendants however, did not take any steps to cause their appearance to be entered within 10 days from the service thereof. Accordingly, by order dated 7.1.1994 it was ordered that the defendants were duly served with the summons in the suit in the prescribed form on 17.9.1993 and that they had failed to put in appearance within the statutory period as prescribed under Order xxxvii Rule 3(1) CPC. (3) The defendants filed an app...
GAiL's Employees Association, Gas Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Chief La ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT824; 1996(39)DRJ578
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against the order dated February 14, 1996 of Chief Labour Commissioner (Appellate Authority) under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 6 of the Act against two clauses 8.7 and 16 dealing with Transfer and Maintenance of essential services. These clauses of the certified Standing Orders of M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL), respondent No.2 herein read as follows: '8.7TRANSFER: A workman may be transferred from one place to another place or location according to exigency of work provided that grade and continuity of service of the workman are not adversely affected by such transfer. 16. Maintenance Of Essential SERVICES;(2) The management may detain or ask any number of workmen to come on duty on any National or Festival Holidays or on any day as may be required by the Management owing to continuity of manufacturing process, stoppage ...
Chetan Dass Vs. Dera Ghazi Khan District Refugees House Building Coope ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)507; 66(1997)DLT660; 1996(39)DRJ609
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) Two Writ petition Nos. 4457/94 and 3531/91 have been filed to seek writs of Mandamus commanding the respondent-Society to allot a residential plot of requisite size to each of the petitioners and for ancillary reliefs. Ccp 165/92 has been filed due to non-compliance of directions issued in Cwp 3377/91 dated 26th February 1992 relating to allotment of plot to Shri Chetan Dass. All these matters, being inter-connected, are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) The three writ petitions relate to the question of allotment of residential plots in Dera Ghazi Khan District Refugees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the Society). The notable and relevant facts are as under: 3.Registration of the Society at Delhi. A Co-operative Society under the name of Dera Ghazi Khan District Refugees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. was registered on 28th April, 1948 at Faridabad, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, Distt. Gurgaon vide registration No. 132-B. On...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kay Floppy Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT159TriDel
1. These two appeals are filed by the Collector against the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras.2. The issue arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether "Floppy Disc Drive" is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.237/83-Cus., dated 18-8-1983. Sl. No. 2 and the table of the Notification describe the goods as Machines for transcribing data on to data media in coded form. The Ld. Collector while examining the issue followed the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of 485/87-B2, dated 15-1-1987. The Tribunal in the said judgment has held that the items fall within the description SI. No. 2 to the table of the Notification.The Revenue is aggrieved with this order of the Collector and they are contending that this item does not fall within the ambit of the said Sl. No. 2 of the Table to the Notification.3. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the records. Collector (Appeals) has correctly followed the Tribunal's judgment referred in the classificati...
VipIn Kumar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1996IIIAD(Delhi)995; 1997(1)Crimes190; 64(1996)DLT781
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' the Code'), is directed against the framing of charge on 3.11.1996 u/Secs. 498-A/304-B/406 read with Section 34, Ipc against the petitioners. (2) The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that Mithlesh, the daughter of the complainant was married to petitioner No. I who is the son of petitioners No. 2 and 3 and the brother of petitioners No. 4 to 6; that all the petitioners subjected Mithlesh to cruelty on the issue of dowry inasmuch as the petitioners demanded Maruti car as the dowry from Mithlesh and her father, the complainant; that on 19.7.1991 petitioner No. 1 brought his wife Mithlesh to the house of complainant and petitioner No. 1, as stated in the complaint, had allegedly told Mithlesh that she should come only with Maruti car and that otherwise he would not come to take her back nor he would see her face and so saying he left in anger; that in the...
Hans Raj Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)85; 64(1996)DLT785
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner (accused) prays for the setting aside of the order dismissing the application by the petitioner for r dropping of the charge under Section 494, IPC. (2) The say of the petitioner is that his wife Smt. Asha Rani daughter of Shri Ram Dhan, initiated false proceedings against him for the offences u/Sees. 494/498-A/406, Indian Penal Code by way of Fir No. 167/87, P.S. Kingsway Camp, Delhi complaining that the petitioner had contracted a remarriage with one Smt. Shashi Bala daughter of Shri Tola Ram during the subsistence of her marriage and also caused cruelty and harassment to her; that the charge sheet was filed on 5.6.1987 against the petitioner- accused and charge u/Secs. 494/498-A/406, Indian Penal Code was framed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and the revision petition preferred against the order of framing of charge, w...
S. Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Uttam Kaur Puri
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT845; 1996RLR441
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) The petitioner has paid in the Court today a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 towards arrears of rent which has been accepted by the respondent without prejudice to her rights regarding balance, if any. Counsel for the petitioner to file details of the payments made from February 1993 till date, within one week. (2) I have heard the petitioner's Counsel. His main contention is that the special procedure for service prescribed under Section 25-B of Rent Control Act has not been followed and there was no personal service on the petitioner. I have perused the record. I find that on two occasions, summons were issued in strict compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 25-B of Rent Control Act. Summons issued under registered A.D. post were taken to the petitioner's address. The cover was taken to the address on 28.3.1993, 29.3.1993, 30.3.1993, 31.3.1993, 2.4.1993, 3.4.1993 and 6.4.1993 and was returned with the postal remarks 'Bar bar jane par evam suchna dene parbhi prapt...
Anil Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)828; 65(1997)DLT913; 1996(39)DRJ145
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Some time in the year 1989-90 the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, for short) complaining of failure on the part of the society in alloting a plot to him. He had sought for a declaration that he was bonafide and legal member senior to respondent No.2 and that respondent No. 3 was not a bonafide and legal member of the Society. The respondent No.2 filed a reply raising an objection that the petitioner was not a member of the Society as the Managing Committee of the Society had never approved his membership nor issued a share certificate to him. (2) The Joint Registrar (Arbitration) exercising powers of the Registrar held by his order dated 26.12.1990 (Annexure-F )that the petitioner never became a member of the Society and could not have filed a dispute under Section 60. Rule 30 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter 'the Rules', for short) laying down ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »