Delhi Court April 1997 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1997 Page 5 of about 170 results (0.021 seconds)Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT468TriDel
1. These are six appeals filed by M/s. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited against the respective impugned orders. Shri C. Chidambaram, the learned Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted that they obtained clearance in respect of these appeals from Committee of Secretaries as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C. to proceed with the matter. On going through the respective minutes we are satisfied that the party has obtained the clearance.2. In the first 5 appeals the point to be considered is whether benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. as amended from time to time can be extended to spares for 120 Tonne capacity production truck (Wabco Truck). Similarly whether benefit in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus. can be extended to spares for drills is an issue to be considered in Appeal No.C/3461/87-B.3. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 13/81- Cus.has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that Wabco Truck...
Tag this Judgment!Nidhi Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT100TriDel
1. The appellants in this case manufactured HDPE circular woven fabrics unlaminated and also laminated. Out of these fabrics they manufactured woven sacks. They filed classification list showing the heading of such sacks under 6301 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 65/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 on the ground that such sacks were made without use of power. The Assistant Collector approved this classification but subsequently filed an application before the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E (4) of the CESA. Collector (Appeals) in his order held that woven material on circular looms having attained essential character were infact HDPE sacks, incomplete or unfinished classifiable under Heading 6301. Since sacks were woven with power, the benefit of the notification was denied. The present appeal is against this order of the Collector.3. Shri Ramesh Anand, Advocate represented the appellants and department was represented by Shri D.S. Negi, SDR.4. The assessees had classified ...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. JaIn Vs. Bindeshwari Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT189; 1997(42)DRJ239; 1997RLR416
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) By order dated 8.9.1996 the evidence of the defendant-portioned was directed to be closed. The petitioner sought for reviewing and recalling of the order with leave to adduce evidence. By the impugned order the said prayer made by the defendant has been refused. The aggrieved defendant has come up in revision.(2) The present case betrays utter disregard of certain rules of procedure at different stages of proceedings in the hearing of the suits and consequent failure of justice. It appears that the two suits pending between the parties have bee dealt with at different stages by various judicial officers. Unfortunately, either none was aware of or none was enlightened by the learned counsel appearing for the parties with the settled practice and procedure governing consolidation of suits and trial of the suits thereafter. Casualties have taken place at more stages then one. While demonstrating the same I seize this opportunity for recapitulating the judge-made-law on...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thomas Vs. Koshy Thomas
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998RLR36
Mahender Narain, J. (1) The petitioner, Ms. Annu J. Thomas has filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act against the respondent Mr. Thomas Koshy. Originally the petition was filed u/s 22 of the Indian Divorce Act and later the petition was amended and plea u/s 10 of the Act was also added thereto. Ex-parte evidence of (he petitioner was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. (2) The petitioner deposed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25.9.89 at Gregarios Orthodox Syrian Church, Chembur, Bombay. That the parties had gone to Goa for their honeymoon. According to the petitioner wife for the first one or two days there was no problem but abnormal behavior of die respondent started to manifest itself thereafter. (3) The petitioner stated that the respondent used to take drugs and alcohol. As resutl, he used to have swings of mood and used to force the petitioner for unnatural S. intercourse which the petitioner found disgusting. Such behavior had made ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi State Mineral Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Region ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT311
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Delhi State Mineral Industrial Corporation Ltd. In this writ petition, the petitioner Corporation has prayed that order dated 1.6.1992 be quashed. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the said order in any manner for instituting any further proceedings in pursuance of the said- order. The petitioner-corporation is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-Company is entirely a Government owned Company. The petitioner-corporation has become a separate and legal entity and was named as the Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation from the year 1986. Prior thereto, it was part of the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation and was carrying out activities including mining and other connected activities in Delhi. In the year 1986, the petitioner-corporation was created. It is stated in the petition that th...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Govindji Shah Vs. Panna Lal Chandu Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)771; 1997(2)ARBLR76(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT65
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The plaintiff instituted the present suit praying for perpetual in junction against the defendant restraining passing off the trade mark of the plaintiff and also for damages and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff has been carrying on his business of manufacturing and marketing of hardware goods under the name and style of M/s. Acme Industries. It is stated that during the year 1979 the plaintiff bonafide and honestly adopted and conceived the trade mark Flora in relation to his aforesaid goods. The plaintiff states that the said mark is being used by him since then openly, continuously, exclusively and extensively. In the same year the plaintiff also honestly devised the label/wrapper/ carton entitled Flora in a attractive lettering style to which the plaintiff is the first adopter, originator and author. It is stated that on account of continuous, regular & extensive use of the said trade mark Flora in relation to hardware goods of the plaintiff the said trade m...
Tag this Judgment!Ghisa Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)613; 70(1997)DLT250; 1997(42)DRJ308
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This order shall govern the disposal of CRs No. 754 to 765 of 1990 the facts wherein are common and the question of law arising for decision is the same.(2) It would suffice to notice the facts in Cr 754/90 The petitioner's land was acquired. Under the same notification several pieces of land belonging to several persons were acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award. Several petitioners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the act' for short). The references were decided on 1.2.1975 enhancing the market value up to Rs. 2200-2500 per Bigha. The petitioners herein felt satisfied and did not go in appeal against the order of the reference court seeking further enhancement. However, a supplementary award No. 50A/96-97 was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 4.11.81 in the case of some other claimants. A reference under Section 18 of the Act arising out of the supplementary award was...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Dhawan Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)467; 67(1997)DLT516
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) By the impugned order the Appellate Authority has admitted the appeal and stayed the petitioner's eviction from the property in question subject to his depositing the amount of damages as assessed by the Estate Officer within two months from the date of the order. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has committed a patent illegality in granting conditional stay against the petitioner's eviction from the property in question. It has to be borne in mind that the superintending function of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is to compel the exercise of Judicial Authority on the subject, and not beyond it; to define the subject by the elements comprising it, and by reference to the prescribed, or intended, external conditions; and to exact obedience to the law of procedure in gathering the materials for adjudication, and in giving effect to them. It is no part of that function to substitute the discretion ...
Tag this Judgment!Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)LC681Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-original dated 23-4-1991 of Addl. Collector of Customs. The appellants imported Scanner along with Camag Linomat IV. While they were given benefit under OGL in respect of scanner, it was held that Camag Linomat IV is not an essential part of scanner but is only a separate accessory or peripheral which at the option of the importer, can be used along with the scanner for an accurate analysis.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate draws attention to para 15 of Import and Export Policy April, 1990-March, 1993 Volume I and submits that "component" is defined to include an accessory and that these accessories can be imported under open general licence.4. We have heard both sides. We find that component has been defined in Import and Export Policy to include an accessory. "Spare" also has been defined to include an accessory. S. No. l(ii) of Appendix 6 dealing with Import of items under Open General Licence permits the import among others of ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT742TriDel
1. All these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and were disposed of through this common order.2. The appellants imported Memory Modules, Computer Peripherals and spares and claimed concessional activity under Notification No. 282/84.The concession was denied to them on the ground that Notification exempted computers and not the parts of computers.3. Arguing for the appellants ld. Advocate submitted that necessary certificate in terms of notification had been obtained from Deptt. of Electronics and therefore, Customs ought to have granted them the exemption.4. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that Notification exempts computers and not computer parts and two cannot be equited.5. We have heard both sides. Notification No. 282/84, dated 19-11-1984 exempts computer falling under sub-heading of Heading 84.51/55 at the material time and under 84.71 after March, 1986. The notification also prescribes a certificate from Jt. Director in the Department of El...
Tag this Judgment!