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.
Rajan and Raj Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT228
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Sections 364/302, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 132/86 in Fir No. 173/86, Police Station, Delhi Cantt.(2) The facts leading to the present appeal, shortly stated, are that one S.C.Gain who resided at Wz 1290, Nangal Rai, New Delhi, Along with his wife Sulata and daughter Vijaya aged about 7' years, lodged a report on 31/03/1986 videD.D. No. 77-B at 10.10 a.m. stating that his daughter Vijaya went from the house to play with the children in the neighbourhood; that she did not return to the house and had been missing; that the complainant S.C. Gain further reported on 1st April,1986 that het he came to know that one boy named Rajan, who was resident of Lajwanti Garden used to come to his house and used to offer toffees, biscuits, etc. to his daughter and the complainant had been told by the children of the locality that Rajan had taken complainant's daughter...
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. Vs. Sonia Kitchenware Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)ARBLR92(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT739
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, namely, 'Hawkins' and also for passing off the goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiff and also for rendition of accounts. The copyright of the plaintiff is registered and their registration No. A27389/80 dated 14.4.1980. It is stated that the said registration of the plaintiff is valid, subsisting and in force. A copy of the registration certificate has been placed on record. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been using the copyright with the 'Hawkins' label since the year 1974 in respect of pressure cookers of its manufacture and sale throughout India. In view of the quality of the products of the plaintiff, it has acquired a valuable reputation in the country. The plaintiff has also advertised its pressure cookers under 'Hawkins' label extensively throughout Indi...
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. S.K. Tagi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)690; 66(1997)DLT772
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Arrival of the Counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 1130 p.m. as it was informed by the respondent present in Person that his Counsel being busy before one of the Subordinate Courts would be coming by 12 noon. As the Counsel for the respondent has not turned up so far. Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent present in Person are heard finally. (2) Revision is disposed of in terms of the following order : The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.8.96 whereby its application under Order 14 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code seeking deleting of Issue No. 2 has been rejected. (3) It appears that the defendant-respondent was in the employment of the petitioner-plaintiff. The employment has been terminated. Termination has been challenged by the respondent before the Industrial Court and that Court is ceased of the issue whether the services of defendant-respondent were terminated unlawfully or not. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this suit be...
Kamlapati Dubey Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1; 67(1997)DLT25; 1997(41)DRJ480
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) The petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 22.11.1990, by which he was removed from the service. This order was passed by respondent no.5, Dr. K.K. Jha, Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Silchar Region, Assam. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:- (2) The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher on 16.8.84. On 22.7.1986, Shri S.P.Singh, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya addressed a letter to Dr.K.K. Jha, seeking his advice so as to place the petitioner under suspension because they were aggrieved by a lawyer's notice sent to them at the behest of the petitioner and also for the reason that the petitioner applied for a staff quarter. Immediately thereafter on 24.7.86, the petitioner was put under suspension. On 26.8.86, the petitioner made representation challenging the competence of the principal to suspend the petitioner under Rule 10 of Ccs (CCA) ...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)562; 68(1997)DLT884
C.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the respondents for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the impugned Orders dated December 18, 1996 and March 4, 1997 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and by the Additional District Judge, Delhi as an Appellate Authority.2. The Estate Officer is seized of the matter in respect of the premises bearing flat No. 12, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi which is the subject matter of eviction proceedings between Life Insurance Corporation of India and the petitioner. The necessary proceedings are still continuing before the said Officer who disposed of the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the petitioner that no litigation can come to a Court or a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee for this purpose and its clearance for litigatio...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT365TriDel
1. This revenue appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 21-6-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The impugned goods were assessed to duty under CTH 8481.80. The respondents subsequently filed a refund claim claiming goods to be classifiable under CTH 8414.90 as parts of compressor and not as valves as such. Collector (Appeals) on appeal accepted this plea.Arguing for Revenue ld. DR submits that valves are specifically included under CTH 8481.80 and this heading is excluded under Notification 132/87 issued by virtue of powers under chapter note 7(d) of 98.3. Ld. Advocate for the respondents submits that these valves are parts of compressors, specially designed for compressor and therefore, should be classified under CTH 8414.90. The heading 8414.90 is not excluded under Notification 132/87 and therefore, they are eligible for assessment under heading 98.06.4. We have heard both sides. Valves have been specifically included under heading 8481.80. HSN Notes at page 1322 in...
Dental and Surgical Equipments Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT694TriDel
1. The appellants imported "Trophylight head :" which was assessed as light fittings under heading 83.01/15(1) of the C.T.A. Later the importer filed refund claim on the ground that the goods were classifiable as Dental Instruments and apparatus under heading 90.17/18. The lower Authorities having rejected the refund claim holding that classification as originally made was correct, the present appeal is before us.2. Shri T. Vishwanathan, Advocate cited Manufacturer's technical literature which in dealing with the aspect for "style of design" stated that the design of the imported goods would make them blend perfectly with the style of the dental equipment. Citing sub-note to Heading 90.17 of the B.T.N., he stated that heading covers complete dental equipments on its base along with other mounted accessories in which diffused lighting is also included. On this count, he suggests that classification claimed by the Importer is warranted.3. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR refers to Note-l(e) to C...
United Provinces Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT604TriDel
1. The Additional Collector in the order held that dip reading method adopted by the officers was correct and practical method of measuring the quantity of molasses available in the factory's tanks and therefore held that the seized 4492.30 Qtls. of molasses is liable to confiscation and confiscated the same and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on them. Against this order, the appellants filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case are that on 1-5-1991 the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants. On physical verification of the stock of the molasses for the sugar season in the year 1990-91, the Central Excise Officers found an excess of 4492.30 Qtls. of molasses. This excess was determined on the basis of dip reading excluding foam. Since this excess was not specifically explained to the Central Excise Officers a show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why the excess quantity should not be confiscated and why...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Print OrigIn Co. Ind. Co-op.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT144TriDel
1. This is a revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. The facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of electric motors falling under TI 30. They had claimed exemption under Notification No. 71/78, dated 1-3-1978. The request was rejected by the revenue on the ground that M/s. Automatic Electric Ltd. who supplied raw materials to the appellants and who got electric motors, which were entitled to the exemption under Notification 71/78 as the total value of the excisable goods cleared by them exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. In other words, the Asstt. Collector treated M/s. Automatic Electric Ltd. as the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act as they supplied raw materials to the assessee, who after making the goods, returned it to M/s. Automatic Electric Ltd. Therefore, the Asstt. Collector had demanded duty of Rs. one lakh on the electric motors cleared from 1-4-1979 valued at Rs. 5 lakhs.2. The Collector (Appeals) on ca...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. S.G. Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT282TriDel
1. The captioned appeal has been filed by the ld. Collector, Central Excise, Meerut being aggrieved by the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that in both these cases namely, the use of LCD Display Tubes and Button Cells, the inputs were directly and indirectly related to the manufacture of the final product, therefore, modvat credit is admissible on both LCD Display Tubes and Button Cells.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturer of pocket electronic calculators. They filed a declaration under Rule 57G consisting of 25 items to be used as inputs on which they claimed benefit of duty paid on inputs under the modvat scheme. In one of the items, the appellants, described the inputs as LED Display Tubes. When the discrepancy was pointed out, the respondents submitted that it is not LED Display Tube but it is actually LED Display Tube which is the inputs. The respondents were asked by show causes notice dated 31-10-1991 and 4-2-1992 to explain as to why ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »