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.
Castrol Ltd. and anr. Vs. A.K. Mehta and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)681; 1997(2)ARBLR25(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT109; 1997RLR324
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) The plaintiffs have come up in appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.7.96 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's application seeking the grant of ad interim injunction protecting their trade mark. (2) The plaintiff No. 1 Castrol LTD. is a Company incorporated under the law of England having its registered office in U.K. It is carrying on business at large and extensive scale in manufacturing, processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products in U.K. and several other countries all over the world. It also trades the anti-freezing compound, hydraulic fluids, brake fluid, de-watering fluids, metal working and cutting oil and Chemical cleaning materials. (3) Plaintiff No. 2 Castrol India Ltd. is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Bombay and regional office at New Delhi. It carries on business at a large and extensive scale in high grade automotive and indu...
Ajit Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)1038; 67(1997)DLT446; 1997(42)DRJ13
S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) In this petition the members of the petitioner/Association claim to have entered into different agreements with respondent No. 2, M/s. Skipper Tower Pvt. Ltd. in respect of certain flats built on premises No. 22, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. This plot of land was auctioned by the Dda for a sum of Rs. 84 lakhs in the year 1982-85. The Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. failed time and again to make the payment. Cheques were given which were dishonoured. Writ was filed. The orders of the Court were not honoured. Contempt application was moved and ultimately after the matter had gone up to the Supreme Court the allotment, which was earlier cancelled, was restored vide letter dated 22nd May, 1992.(2) However, respondent No. 2 M/s. Skipper Towers Pvt. Ltd. failed to pay the ground rent and interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum despite notices dated 4th May, 1993, 4th October, 1993, 8th December, 1993 and 4th August, 1994. Consequently, allotment of plot was again ca...
Globetech Engineers Vs. Ajay Chadha
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)537; 1997(41)DRJ599; 1997RLR350
Usha Mehra, J. (1) The respondent Ajay Chadha and others sought eviction of the present appellant (respondent before the Trial Court) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The respondents let out the premises bearing No.208, Pragati House, 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.2100.00 . It was the case of the respondents that the tenant despite service of notice of demand dated 19th July,1983 neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 1st June, 1983. (2) Summons of eviction by the Court were duly served by ordinary as well as by registered A/D post on the present appellant. However, none appeared on his behalf, as such this appellant was proceeded ex-parte by the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC). An ex-parte order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) was passed on 15th Septembcr,1984 thereby directing this appellant to pay or deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2100.00 per month payable fr...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hind High Vacuum Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT689TriDel
1. The assessees in this case were manufacturing Lyophiliser. The assessees classified these goods under Heading 84.19 and sought benefit of Notification No. 155/86, dated 1-3-1986. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the classification but denied the benefit of the notification.The Collector having extended the benefit, the Revenue are before us in appeal.2. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, Senior Departmental Representative. The respondents were not present.3. Heading 84.19 as reproduced below covers a variety of machinery, plant or Laboratory equipments. "Heading 84.19 - Machinery, plant or Laboratory equipment, whether or not electrically heated, for the treatment of materials by a process involving a change of temperature such as heating cooking, roasting, distilling, rectifying, steriling, pasteurising, steaming, drying, evaporating, vaporising, condensing or cooling, other than machinery or plant of a kind used for domestic purposes; instantaneous or storage, water heaters, no...
Kaycee Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT83TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 5-2-1990 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The appellants are manufacturers of electronic calculators. For the manufacture of these calculators they imported, what they claimed to be, Printer Heads. Initially by resorting to self-assessment, they claimed classification under heading 8471 with benefit of Notification 172/77. Customs Authorities, however, assessed the goods by giving them the benefit of Notification 186/87. Asstt. Collector (Refunds) and Collector (Appeals) rejected their claim on the ground that the Notification 172/77 did not permit exemption to goods containing thermionic films. They also rejected assessment under Notification 186/87.2. We have heard both sides. The appellants obviously could not get the benefit of Notification 172/77, since goods admittedly contain transistors and diodes specifically excluded under Notification.Notification 186/87, however, specifically exempts Line Printers. The goods are de...
Faucet Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT599TriDel
1. These two appeals involve a common issue, namely, whether the benefit of deemed Modvat credit was available to the inputs in question, namely, brass scrap purchased by the appellant from dealers.In one of these cases the issue also relates to similar purchases of zinc scrap used by the appellant in the manufacture of the final product bathroom fittings. Common arguments were addressed by the respective sides. This common order disposes of both the appeals.2. The appellants had purchased the subject inputs from dealers who were either importers of the said material or who had purchased such imported material from others, who had imported the same. It was explained by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the inputs involved in both the appeals were all imported scrap. In some cases they had obtained the copies of the relevant Bills of Entry given to them by the concerned importers/dealers. The Additional Collector who passed the adjudication orders disallowing Modvat credit ha...
Collector of Cus. Vs. Gujarat Vacuum Coaters Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT143TriDel
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 14-1-1991. The Respondents imported aluminium tubes cut to specific size and shape with mirror finish on the surface and had grooves on the edges. They claimed assessment under CTH 7608.10 as aluminium tubes.The Assistant Collector held that these were parts of photocopier machine assessable under CTH 9009.90. Collector (Appeals), however, held that the goods have not attained the essential character of finished goods, and therefore, held that the impugned goods were only aluminium tubes.2. We have heard both sides. Order-in-Original indicates that the impugned goods after importation required to be subjected to processing like finish turning for roughing the outer surface of the aluminium tube to ensure uniform adhesion of the coating coating of selenium under ultra-high vacuum conditions by vacuum evaporation process, fitting of the end-aluminium flanges. There is no dispute on these findings from Revenue. It is the co...
Bari Doab Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas292(Delhi)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. These two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 56 of 1997 and 57 of 1997 are filed by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Bari Doab Bank Ltd., respectively. L.P.A. No. 56 of 1997 is against the judgment of the learned single judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 4046 of 1996 filed by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., while L.P.A. No. 57 of 1997 is against the judgment of the learned single judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3885 of 1996 filed by the Bari Doab Bank Ltd. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition after considering the common questions of law arising in the cases (see p. 292 supra). 2. In both the writ petitions, the proceedings have been initiated by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter called 'the RBI') under section 45(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), before the Government of India seeking an amalgamation of the Punjab Co-operative Bank with the Oriental Bank of Commerce (a nationalised bank,) and the Bari ...
Yugantar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas621(Delhi)
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. The petitioners claim to have filed this writ petition in public interest, seeking a restraint on the Bank of India, respondent No. 5 herein, from issuing shares and collecting money from the public under its public issue of 15 crores shares at Rs. 10 each, for cash at a premium of Rs. 35 per share. The petitioners are also seeking, inter alia, to evolve standard rules in replacement of Government's absolute power to write off losses of banks. A direction is also sought for an enquiry into damage to records of the respondent-bank due to a fire. 2. Petitioner No. 1, Mr. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, is reported to be the convener of the newspaper Yugantar. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be attached to several social, cultural organizations in the capacity of patron. He is a former member of the Agra Development Authority. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be deeply interested in matters of public importance to the nation and society at large. Petitioner No. 2 is a society engaged in...
ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)333; 2(1997)CLT273; 67(1997)DLT145; 1997(42)DRJ131
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) There are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made there from have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made there from. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.(2) In so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »