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.
Collector of Cus. Vs. Kodi Medical Electronics Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT535TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-11-1987 passed by Collector (Appeals). The Respondent imported rechargeable battery and claimed benefit of Notification No. 235/83 on the ground that these batteries were part of medical electronic equipment.2. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue the ld. D.R. submits that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 85.05 as batteries. These are general purpose batteries and cannot be considered as parts of Medical equipment. There is distinction between parts and accessories and he submits that this has been clearly brought out in Tribunal's Order No.C/188/97-B2, dated 10-2-1997 1997 (92) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal).3. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents when the matter was called.4. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the records. Notification No.235/83, dated 18-8-1983 exempts parts (parts other than parts containing thermionic valves or transistors or similar semi-conductor devices or light emitting diodes or e...
Sanyukt Nirmata Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)400; 1997(1)ARBLR583(Delhi); 66(1997)DLT776; 1997(41)DRJ527
J.B. Goel, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded the work pertaining to construction of 1776 Lig Houses in Sectors 6 & 7 at Rohini SH; construction of 336 Lig houses in Sector 6 Pocket 6 Rohini and an agreement bearing No.S/EE/RPD-l/82-83 was executed between the parties. The work was to commence on 28.11.1982 and the period of execution was 12 months. The work was not completed in time and was actually completed on 2.7.1985. It appears that some extra work was also done by the petitioner-contractor. Disputes arose about the various payments withheld or deducted from the bills, and also on account of extra items and extra costs/damages suffered due to delay in execution of the work which were not paid. Delay in completion of work was on the part of the respondent. The agreement between the parties in its clause 25 contained arbitration clause which provided that all questions and disputes shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person to be appointed by the Engineer Member, Delhi D...
First Security Bank of Utah Vs. East West Travel and Trade Links Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)941; 1997(1)ARBLR196(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT53; 1997(41)DRJ636
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The First Security Bank of Utah and others filed the suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Respondent is the East West Travel and Trade Links Limited contending, inter alia, that the arbitration proceedings should be under the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance and later on the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (No. 26/96). This court delivered the judgment on 27.03.1996 appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak, former Chief Justice of India as an Arbitrator. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has confirmed the order. The Hon'ble Arbitrator had entered upon the reference. The petitioner has filed this is No. 11967/96 in the disposed of matter praying for the following reliefs: a) Aircraft Number be ordered to be read as Msn 22576 (and not 22567); b) It be clarified that the order in question be treated as not giving the Findings/ directions that the Arbitration/Arbitral proceeding are to be governed by the A...
Bharat Construction Corporation Vs. Delhi Development Authority and an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 68(1997)DLT456
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) The petitioner was awarded with the contract work under the name and style 'Construction of different categories of Sfs houses at Sarita Vihar, Sector I', by the respondent No. 1. In respect of the aforesaid contract disputes arose between the parties in pursuance of which the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The Engineer Member of the respondent No. 1 appointed respondent No. 2 as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising between the parties. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 15.7.1991 and made the award on 13.5.1994. (2) The petitioner filed the petitioner in this Court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act praying for filing of the award in this Court. Notice of the aforesaid matter was issued to the Arbitrator, the respondent No. 2 on service of which the respondent No. 2 filed the award in original in this Court Along with the record of the arbitration proceedings. Notice of filing of the award having been issued by this Court to the ...
Shilpi Modes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shilpi Unitech
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT636
M.K. Sharma, J.(1) This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules I and 2 read with Order 39, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the application namely, I.A. 9309/1995 filed on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The plaintiff instituted the present suit against the defendants seeking for a decree for declaration for dissolution of defendant No. 1 and also for rendition of accounts by defendant No. 2 and after such rendition of account to pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the amount found to be due to it. (3) The case pleaded in the plaint is that the defendant No. 1 is a single venture partnership of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2. It is alleged that a partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 had come into existence and acted upon and that although in respect of the said single venture partnership e...
Yeshoda Rani Vs. Maneesh Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 1997IIAD(Delhi)531; 67(1997)DLT340; 1997(42)DRJ9
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.4.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA.8057 of 1993 in Suit No.2065 of 1993, by which he confirmed the interim injunction restraining the appellants from alienating, transferring or otherwise parting with the possession of the suit property. (2) The facts in brief may be noticed: (I)Appellants are owners of property bearing No.500/3-B/2-A/2, admeasuring 200 sq.yards forming part of Khasra No.3882, 2192/800/1400 situated in Village Chandrawal, Shahdara. (II)THEappellants vide an agreement dated 2.3.1993 had agreed to sell the said property to the respondents for a total consideration of Rs.5,89,500.00 . A sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 had been received by the appellants as earnest money. The balance sale consideration of Rs.4,89,500.00 was payable at the time of delivery of vacant possession of the first floor and upon execution and registration of documents, viz. General Power of Attorney, Agreemen...
Chand Naulakha Vs. Saraswati Builder
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT589; 1997(43)DRJ621
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition assailing the order dated 13.7.1994, passed by the Additional District Judge, by which the petitioner's applications under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code and under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code was dismissed.(2) The essential facts for the purposes of disposal of the revision petition may be briefly noted: (I)The petitioner has instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,74,000.00 on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 had been deposited with defendants concern M/s. Saraswati Builders, which would carry interest @ 18% p.a. The petitioner accordingly sued the respondents for the sum of Rs. 2,74,000.00 . The petitioner moved an application under Order xxxviii, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code and under Order Xxxix, Rules 1 and 2, Cpc, seeking attachment before judgment of properties as well as restraint on the respondents from selling, transferring and disposing of any of their properti...
Cheryl Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT129TriDel
1. The common appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical products falling under subheading 3003.10 of the present Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Besides effecting sales appellant has been supplying, free of cost, samples to physicians also. The dispute in this appeal relates to the determination of the assessable value of the free samples. Appellant filed price list declaring the value of physician's samples as the sum total of the cost of raw material, manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. The price list having been approved provisionally, clearances were being made accordingly on payment of duty. For the periods from 25-7-1991 to 30-11-1991 and 1-12-1992 to 28-4-1993, notices were issued to the appellant stating that since Section 4(1) (a) of the Central Excises Act (for short, the Act) cannot be applied to the instant case in the absence of sale to physicians the provision of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and Rule 6 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (fo...
Rajesh Ramchandra Gandhi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT168TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 16-8-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants were denied the concessional rate of duty on what they claimed to be the Automatic Ice Cream Filling Machine for 2 sizes of Cups, Check Weighing Volumatric Fillers imported under Bill of Entry dated 31-12-1986.3. Arguing for the appellants, the Learned Advocate submits that the appellants are manufacturers of Ice Cream. The impugned goods are check weighing volumetric gravimetric fillers. This basic function is carried out by the machine during the process of filling and packing of Ice Cream into cups. They are fully covered under Sl. No. 22 of the Notification No. 125/86. Drawing our attention to the catalogue and literature, he submits that through proportioning mentioned in the literature check weighing volumetric function in fact, is carried out, while filling the Ice Cream into cups.4. Further he draws specific attention to the examination report reco...
Gulf Olefines P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC483Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Calcium Carbide classifiable under sub-heading 2806.20 of the new Central Excise Tariff, applied for and obtained permission of the proper officer under Rule 173C(11) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 dispensing with filing price lists and enabling removal of exciseable goods on the basis of relevant sales invoices. The permission was given on 24-12-1986. Notice dated 14-7-1987 was issued to the appellant stating that the concession given was being misused and likely to harm the interest of Revenue as the appellant was raising debit notes in respect of goods cleared and without paying proper duty on the correct assessable value. The notice proposed withdrawal of the concession granted under Rule 173C(11) of the Rules. Appellant resisted the notice but the Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal and withdrew the permission. This ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »