Delhi Court May 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.
Bharti Rani Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh Bedi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-06-1997
Reported in: 67(1997)DLT296; 1997(42)DRJ19
J.B. Goel, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1978 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the suit filed by deceased plaintiff Smt. Bharti Rani Singh against the respondents No. 1 to 5 who were defendants, for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated February 20, 1961 has been dismissed. However, a decree for refund of Rs. 89,678.41P. after disallowing the refund of earnest money of Rs. 17,000.00 has been passed in her favour.(2) The said plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against the present respondents 1 to 5 alleging that Late Shri K.R. Bedi, the father of the respondent R.S. Bedi had entered into an agreement to sell dated February 20, 1961 for sale of property bearing Plot No. 18, Block No. 39, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 2,37,000.00. Out of sale consideration a sum of Rs. 17,000.00 was paid as(3) Defendants No. 1 to 4 (respondents ...
Agrasen Engg. Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT435TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Agrasen Engg. Works, being aggrieved with the order-in-original, dated 28-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, the notice to show cause had been issued on 15-7-1986 by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Raipur. The Central Excise Duty has been demanded for the period from 1980-81 to 1985-86 (to 24-1-1986).2. It is seen that under Section 11A of the then Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Central Excises & Salt (Amendment) Act, 1985, the show cause notice which sought to recover duty for more than six months alleging violation of the rules, suppression, etc., was required to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise. Shri B.B.Gujral, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal had taken a consistent view that after the amendments in December, 1985 the show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation was required to be signed by the Collector of Central Excise. In thi...
Peejay Woollens P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT364TriDel
1. Information was received by the DRI Zonal Office that M/s. Larsen Italiana, Mogolia, Italy were supplying very old second-hand machines of various models to importers at Ludhiana by affixing new number plates and manipulating Sl. Nos. and year of manufacture so as to enable their import under OGL. Pursuant to the said information, the import documents of the appellants (the machines were supplied under cover of invoices dated 18-2-1988) were taken over and scrutinised and it was found that although the year of manufacture was shown as 1983, there was an abnormal difference in the Sl. Nos. of the machines stated to have been manufactured in the same year. Therefore, the Department was under the reasonable belief that the buyer might have manipulated the year of manufacture in order to circumvent the conditions of OGL stipulated in Paragraph 64(2) of the Import Policy, April -March 1985-88 which provided that such machines should not be more than 7 years old and the machines must hav...
Rajinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Uttam Kaur Puri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-05-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)573; 68(1997)DLT460; 1997RLR554
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Late Kartar Singh Puri was the owner/landlord of premises bearing No. 1/59, Double Storey, Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 constructed on an area of 40 sq.yds. This property was allotted to said Kartar Singh by the Custodian of Evacuee property. The said Shri Kartar Singh died in 1982 leaving behind his widow Smt. Uttam Kaur, the respondent No. 1 herein. After the death of her husband, she became the owner/landlord of the premises in question. The premises consists of one room, one kitchen and Wc on the first floor and common latrine in a separate block. The respondent No. 1. Smt. Uttam Kaur being a aged widow and in need of her premises filed an eviction petition in 1992 against respondent No. 2 Shri Mohinder Pal Singh son of late Shri Joginder Singh under Section 14-D and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (here in after called the Act). Her case was that Shri Mohinder Pal Singh (in short M.P. Singh) was her tenant. Since she was in need of the premises for her...
General Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-03-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT354TriDel
1. The facts of the case, in brief, leading to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of galvanised steel stranded wire, non-galvanised stranded wire, A.C.S.R. steel core wire, steel wire for ATB etc. They were receiving wire rods as inputs under GP1 showing nil rate of duty to give the reference of original duty paying documents from M/s. Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Co., Malanpur.The Department alleged that since the amount of duty has not been shown as paid against the relevant column of gate passes, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Modvat credit. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit of Rs. 8,81,0654/- taken by them during the period June 1992 to July 1992 should not be disallowed and why the amount utilised should not be recovered from them. In reply to the show-cause notice, the appellants submitted that the forwarding gate passes indicated the particula...
Shree Synthetics Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT84TriDel
1. The amount involved is Rs. 17,082/- and penalty of Rs. 1,700/-. The issue is admissibility of Modvat credit on chemicals used in cooling water for the manufacture of Noylon.2. Heard both sides. ld. Counsel submits that issue is a recurring nature. Upon hearing both sides I order appeal be admitted to regular hearing in due course.3. Taking up the stay application the ld. Counsel submits that issue is already covered; he cites; the case of I.C.I. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bombay III reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 695 (Tribunal). The head note indicates that water treatment chemical for steam for cooling water is entitled to Modvat credit.5. Considered. In case of I.C.I. Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal held that such treatment chemicals are required for steam generation for cooling water. These are eligible to Modvat credit. They relied upon the case reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 572 (Tribunal) Straw Products Ltd. v.C.C.E. wherein Modvat benefit in respect of such water treatment was be allowed. It was...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jay Enn Castings Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT82TriDel
1. This is a department's appeal filed w.r.t. order of Collector (A), Chandigarh.2. Ld. DR stated that in this case the appellants had availed Modvat benefit in respect of material used in the manufacture of steel ingots without properly observing the prescribed procedure. The credit has been taken on the basis of SAIL challans which had been endorsed twice and without following the procedure laid down in Trade Notice No. 20/93 and even where D3 intimation had been filed the material had been utilised before the facts could be verified by the Central Excise Officers. It was his submission that the procedure is prescribed either under Board's instructions or under the Trade Notice issued by the Collectors in their capacity as proper authorities and therefore the assessees are obliged to follow the same and if they do not do so they run the risk of rejection of their claim for the Modvat benefit.3. The Collector (A) has however, allowed the same hence the impugned order should be set as...
Metro Exporters (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT427TriDel
1. These appeals relates to common issues. These will therefore taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. During June, 1984, the appellant imported eight consignments of aluminium alloy coated carbon steel sheets in coils. The said eight consignments were shipped by the foreign supplier to Bombay on a vessel known as S.S. Master George of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. The appellant filed prior bill of entry for home consumption in respect of the said eight consignments on 26-5-1984. The said bill of entry was duly assessed by Custom department on 20-6-1984 by charging rate of 40% Customs duty and by charging auxiliary duty at the rate of 30%.3. On 22-6-1984 in notification bearing No. 186/84 issued by the Govt.of India was published in the Gazette of India. The effect of the said notification was that the effective rate of Customs duty in respect of aluminium alloys coated carbon steel sheets in coils was increased from 40% to 60% for the pur...
Tega India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT755TriDel
1. Common appellant in these appeals is aggrieved by the common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) reversing separate orders passed by the Assistant Collector dropping the demands proposed under six different show cause notices.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of rubber and rubber products. Appellant also undertakes job work on behalf of various other customers of rubber lining of steel pipes and the like supplied by such others. For rubber lining appellant receives job charges from customers. Demands in these cases were made in respect of July to September, 1985, January, 1986 to February, 1986 and December, 1986.Appellant was paying duty on assessable value being the sum total of the value of rubber lining and the job charges received for affixing rubber lining on steel pipes. Appellant was not including in assessable value the value of steel pipes so received from the customers.Appellant was availing invoice price procedure under Notification No.120/75 which was in f...
Shyam Sunder Trikha Vs. Sunita
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Delhi153; 67(1997)DLT619; II(1997)DMC59; 1997(42)DRJ198
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 14.1.1997, passed by the learned Guardian Judge, on the application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, for interim custody of the child. The learned Guardian Judge allowed custody of the child to the petitioner on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of the month between 9.00 AM. to 6.00 PM.(2) The petitioner's grievance emanates from the fact that in terms of the mutual arrangement arrived at between the parties at the time of grant of divorce by mutual consent, the petitioner/father was to have custody of the child on the morning of 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month till 8.00 PM., on the following Sundays. Apart from that, the petitioner was to have custody of the child for 10 days during summer vacation and 6 days during Dusherra and Ashtami and 5 days during winter vacation.(3) Respondent has filed reply to the revision petition and application for stay. An application, viz. Cm No.1572/97 has been moved by the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »