Delhi Court September 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.
Hekotronics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT682TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Hekotronics (P) Ltd., Bombay, the matter relates to the classification of the products described as (1) Static Ringers and Tone Generator, and (2) Printed Circuit Board. These goods were used in line telephony. The appellants had classified these products under Heading No. 9030.00, which covers the following :-Heading No. Description of Goods----------- ---------------------9030 "Oscilloscopes, spectrum analysers and other instruments and apparatus for The Revenue had sought to classify these goods under Heading No.8517.00,Heading No. Description of Goods----------- ----------------------8517.00 "Electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy including such apparatus 2. The notice for today's hearing had been issued to the appellants on 13-8-1996. There is no response. The matter was originally posted on 12-9-1996 and was passed over to 13-9-1996. There is no response from the appellants. There is no request for any adjournment. As the matte...
Collector of Customs Vs. Shree Sulphuric Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT587TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the Revenue has agitated against the Lower amount of penalty and redemption [fine], in respect of "Bright Yellow Crude Sulphur". The facts of the case in brief are that, the respondents herein imported 3000 MTs of Sulphur. In the Bill of Entry, it was described as "Bright Yellow Crude Sulphur". However, along with the Bill of Entry, the respondents herein filed a letter describing that the Bright Yellow Crude Sulphur was in powder form. This letter assumes importance inasmuch as under Notification No. 7/92, only Sulphur in powder form was exempted from levy of CVD. The Department, therefore, alleged that the description of the goods was incorrect and the claim of exemption under Notification No. 7/92 was made with the intention to evade payment of duty. The Collector of Customs, after considering the various submissions made, confiscated the goods imported and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-.2. Shr...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT581TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals), in his order, had held : "6. The above mentioned para means that all the notifications are not applicable. As it has stated that sugar not covered by Notification Nos. 35/76 and 210/73 and its successor notifications are to be demanded in terms of Section 11 A. Therefore, when all these notifications are held to be not applicable, the rate for free sale sugar can only be applicable as it existed at the relevant period. That is also the subject of the earlier show cause notices. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector that rates under Notification No. 35/76 are applicable is not in pursuance of these show cause notices because the ground is completely different. However, this show cause notice is more or less a repetition of the earlier two show cause notices, except there is some discrepancy in the period of demand. I find that the appellant's contention that this sh...
In the Matter Of: M/S. Disco Electronics Ltd., (In Liquidation)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi251
ORDER1. In this case the Official Liquidator has challenged the sale of certain properties of the company in respect whereof Official Liquidator has been appointed as the Provisional Liquidator, purported to have been affected by Delhi Financial Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the DFC') in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act.2. After the arguments, I was informed that similar controversy is pending decision by the Hon'ble Supeme Court and I should await the outcome thereof. Now counsel have pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has since decided the matter in the case of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s. Brinivas Agencies reported as, (1996) 3 Sup 40, Mr. Nayar, counsel for the Official Liquidator, concedes that the controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not identical with the questions arising in the present case as would appear from the discussion appearing hereinafter.3. Brief...
M/S. Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. M/S. Samana Steel Ltd. and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi321; 64(1996)DLT139; 1996(39)DRJ372
ORDERDr. M. K. Sharma, J. 1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C., being I.A. No. 6321/1994, praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents dealers, representatives and all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing with directly or indirectly with PVC pipes, tubes and fittings thereof under the trade mark 'PRAKASH SURYA' and/or SURYA PRAKASH or any other identical and/ or deceptively similar trade marks as of the plaintiffs. This order shall also further dispose of the injunction application No. 7188/94 wherein the defendant No. 2 has sought for setting aside vacating the ex parte injunction granted by this court on 15-6-1994 whereby, the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives were restrained from selling offering for sale of dealing with PVC pipes and tubes with the offending trade...
S.K. Bhattacharya and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas37(Delhi)
Devinder Gupta J. 1. In this writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India the grievance of the petitioners is against the action of respondent No. 2 in having taken on record and registered on April 22, 23, 1992, the statutory Form No. 32 filed by respondent No. 4 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and in not taking on record and registering the statutory forms and returns submitted by the petitioners on June 10, 1992, namely, Forms Nos. 2, 5, 23 and 32. Consequently, a writ, order or direction is sought against respondent No. 2 to take on record and register the petitioners' statutory Forms Nos. 2, 5, 23 and 32, submitted on June 10, 1992, and other statutory forms and returns filed subsequent thereto and in the alternative to quash and de-register the statutory Form No. 32, dated April 22, 23, 1992, filed by respondent No. 4. 2. The facts in brief are that Stridewell Leathers Private Limited (hereinafter refer...
Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. Assam Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT52; 2003(39)DRJ470
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and rendition of accounts in respect of the trade mark of the plaintiff 'JUMBO LABEL' with device of Aeroplane in relation to edible oils (Mustard Oil). The main relief sought for in the suit is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and others working on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in Tea or any other allied and cognate goods under the trade mark 'JUMBO LABEL' or any other trade mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'JUMBO LABEL'. 2. In the suit the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants in the aforesaid terms from manufacturing the aforesaid articles under the trade mark 'JUMBO LABEL' which may be iden...
Micronix India Vs. Disco Electronics Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas950(Delhi); 1996RLR487
J.K. Mehra, J.(1) In this case the Official Liquidator has challenged the sale of certain properties of the company in respect whereof Official Liquidator had been appointed as the Provisionalliquidator, purported to have been affected by Delhi Financial Corporation limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the DFC') in exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act.(2) After the arguments, I was informed that similar controversy is pending decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and I should await the outcome thereof. Now, counsels have pointed out that theHon'ble Supreme Court has since decided the matter in the case of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s.Srinivas Agencies & Ors.. reported as 1996 (3) Supreme 400).Mr. Nayar, counsel for the Official Liquidator, concedes that the controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not identical with the questions arising in the present case as would 'appear from the discussion appea...
Vinod Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)564; 1997(2)ALT(Cri)9; 65(1997)DLT786; 1996(39)DRJ437
K.S. Gupta, J.(1) Criminal Appeal No.159/93 by Vinod Kumar and Criminal Appeal No.173/93 by Mukesh Kumar are directed against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge dated September 22, 1993,' convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and the order dated September 29, 1993, sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine each of them was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on May 24, 1985, at 10 Pm Azad Singh, duty constable, Hindu Rao Hospital Public Witness Ioa, informed on telephone Police Station Kingsway Camp that Om Parkash s/o Kundan Lal has been got admitted in hospital by one Satpal in injured condition and a police officer may be deputed. This information was recorded in Daily Diary at Seriall No.21A and a copy thereof was made over to Si K.L.Kalra Public Witness 18.He Along with Constable Bhim S...
K.K. Shukla Vs. Vijay Kumar Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT56
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This Election Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of respondent No. I to the House of the People from the Sadar Lok Sabha constituency on various grounds including that of the allegations of corrupt practice. (2) Before I advert to the issue arising for my consideration in the present petition in respect of which submission has been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner it would be necessary to delineate the facts giving rise to the present petition. (3) The President of India issued a notification under Section 14 of the Act to hold General Elections for the purpose of constituting the 11th Lok Sabha. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the President of India the Election Commission issued public notice under Section 31 of the Act for holding elections for the aforesaid purpose. Under the notification...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »