Delhi Court March 1997 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.
T.N. Rai Vs. Rent Control Tribunal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)579; 67(1997)DLT308; 1997(42)DRJ253
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The impugned order dated 9th January,1997 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has been assailed primarily on the grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of ten years under Section 3(d) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act); and (ii) that the Court below has given very restricted meaning to Section 14(1)(h) & (hh) of the Act thereby making the provision redundant and meaningless; and finally (iii) while granting eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act the Tribunal did not consider the question of suitability of the accommodation allotted to the petitioner by Delhi Development Authority which the Tribunal was bound to do under the law.(2) To appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner we may have a quick glance to the relevant facts. Mrs.Sudesh Kapoor filed an eviction petition under Clause (h) of the provision to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the ...
Subash Electric Works Vs. Madan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-14-1997
Reported in: 1997(41)DRJ514
Usha Mehra, J. (1) In this appeal the only short point taken by the appellant is that he had been denied the protection under Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). In order to appreciate the point, the brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein Filed an eviction petition against the predecessor in interest of the appellants, proprietor of M/s Subhash Electrical Works, on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month payable w.e.f. 1st July, 1967 despite the notice of demand. It was the case of the respondent that after the demand notice, a cheque was issued by the appellant's father late Shri Om Prkash which on presentation was dishonoured.(2) That during the pendency of the petition an interim order under Section 15(1) of the Act was passed on 1st October, 1974. By the said order appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent from 1st November, 1970 up to date within one month at the rate of Rs. 80.00 per month and su...
Orient Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT728TriDel
1. The Dy. Collector in the order-in-original has held that Firstly the party has not mentioned the correct measurement i.e. 'having width more than 600 mm and above', secondly the chapter heading is given as 7220.20. The description of the goods under sub-heading 7220.20 is 'flat rolled products of stainless steel of width of less than 600 mm not further worked than cold rolled'. It means the goods falling under this sub-heading should have width of less than 600 mm. It is therefore, quite clear that the inputs on which the modvat credit has been availed by the party are certainly CR coils having width of more than 600 mm and they should have been classified under sub-heading 7209 and not under 7220.20. The only mistake in the declaration filed by the party is that the correct sub-heading has not been mentioned. He therefore, dropped the demand of Rs. 1,65,310.39 against the appellants. On review of this order, an appeal was filed before the ld.Collr. (Appeals) who in his order held ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Electronic Industries of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT281TriDel
1. In this appeal the Revenue has not produced relevant documents like order-in-original and order-in-appeal despite three opportunities having been granted to them. The case had been finally set down today for hearing. The learned DR says that the concerned X Commissioner does not respond to his letters. The learned Counsel submits that he also does not have any papers and the appeal is required to be rejected for non-production of basic documents. Considered. The Bench has granted three opportunities to the Revenue to file a paper book. The same has not been complied with. The Bench can not decide the case in the absence of materials like order-in-appeal/order-in-original/literature/catalogue/Bill of Entry etc. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules....
Collector of Customs Vs. Mistry Prabhudas Manji
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT197TriDel
1. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal is correct classification of 'Seamless Tubes'. The question is whether such tubes fall under CTH 7304.39 or as parts of heat exchanger under 8419.50 with benefit of Notification No. 155/86.2. Arguing for the Revenue, the Learned DR submits that even when such tubes are specifically designed for heat exchanger, they will remains classifiable under Chapter 73. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to Tribunal's Final Order No. C/74-75/97-B2, dated 4-12-1996 reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 112 (Tribunal).5. HSN notes under Heading 73.04 clearly indicate that the products of this heading include in particular among others tubes and pipes suitable for use in heat exchangers. In view of this, since the impugned goods are not covered under Chapter 84, they would not be eligible to exemption under Notification No. 155/86. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the Revenue appeal....
Arvind Construction Co. Limited Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT115TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 8-12-1989 of C1ollector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants imported a consignment of spare parts which included inter alia, bolts and nuts. These were assessed to duty under CTH 7318 as nuts and bolts. Subsequently they filed a refund claim claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 86/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 which gives partial exemption to bolts and nuts. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the impugned goods are parts of Bulldozers of heading 84.29 and therefore, would be classifiable under heading 9806 in terms of note 1 to Chapter 98. He held that benefit of exemption cannot be available since that Notification applies only to goods of Chapters 72 and 73.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that they are covered under Notification No. 86/86, when these are held to be parts of Bulldozers as basically the impugned goods are nuts and bolts...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Safari Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)(61)ECC261
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) classifying Doctors' cases manufactured by the assessees/respondents herein under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff -- the Revenue seeks classification of this item under Tariff Item 48A which reads as under: 2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned Dr submits that the item in question is nothing but a sort or type of brief case. There is no difference in appearance between any briefcase and the item in dispute, although inside the briefcase, there may be special compartments for keeping equipment such as Blood Pressure equipments, syringes etc. He submits that these being travel goods; that could be carried from place to place, they are covered by Tariff Item 48A which is a specific entry and not by Tariff Item 68 which is a residuary entry, which can be applied only if no other item covers a product. He also submits that the fittings in the doctors' case are detachable and onc...
Ahuja Radios Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT344TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-1-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The appellants' imported a consignment of "Spare parts for Tape / Deck Mechanism" and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 188/87. Subsequently, however after the goods were cleared from customs, they were served with the demands notice alleging short levy on the impugned goods. The show cause notice alleged :- "The spring duty @ 150% + 40% + CVD (c)15% and the 1st Item attracts duty (c) 100% + 40% + CVD @15% and as such the demand for Rs. 50,985/- is issued." 3. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.4. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Representative of the appellants' company submits that the impugned goods are RP Head, Slids Switches, Coils and Springs. The Collector (Appeals) gave the benefit in regard to springs. In regard to other three items, while no reasons to...
Ashwani Kumar Vs. Lawrence Public School
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)744; 66(1997)DLT774
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is a defendant's revision feeling aggrieved by an order dated 2.4.94 whereby the Trial Court seized of a suit under Order 37 of the Cpc has rejected the defendant's application seeking leave of the Court to put in appearance and condone the delay in entering the appearance. (2) The plaintiff-respondent is a public school. It appears that the plaintiff has sold a I seated Matador vehicle to the defendant-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 . Sale letter was executed. (3) The defendant issued two cheques respectively for Rs. 25,000.00 and Rs. 35,000.00 to the plaintiff for payment of sale consideration. The delivery of vehicle was taken by the defendant. Cheque for Rs. 25,000.00 was honoured and cleared by the Bank. The cheque for Rs. 35,000.00 was dishonored on presentation. The defendant again issued two cheques for Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 25,000.00 respectively dated 16.11.92 and 25.12.92 which on being presented to the Bank were dishonoured. The plaintiff afte...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. M.S. Shoes East (i) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: II(1997)BC573; [1998]93CompCas296(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT635; 1997(42)DRJ203
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) The respondent - M/s.M.S.Shoes East (I) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 5, N.W.A., Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi. The company had been carrying on the business as manufacturers, purchasers, buyers, sellers, importers, exporters, stockists, distributors and dealers in leather, leather cloth, rubber, thermoplastic, rexine, etc. and all allied products made of the same. The company had also as its objects the work of construction, alteration, maintenance, etc. of moveable and immoveable properties, buildings, offices, etc. The other objects for which the company was established have been set out in its Memorandum of Association.(2) The company is stated to have won export awards for many years till 1992-93 from the Leather Exports Promotion Council, established by the Government of India. In or about 1994/95 it decided to diversify its operation and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »