Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments

S. Jayadev Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)29; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)3; 67(1997)DLT564; 1997(42)DRJ88

J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the parties. In this case, after the service of summons, the petitioner had approached the Trial Court for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the application for exemption from personal appearance and directed that the accused must appear. The accused challenged the orders of the Trial Court rejecting the request for exemption from personal appearance. Justice N.G. Nandi after hearing the parties, disposed of the matter on 17.12.1996, setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 30.8.1996 whereby exemption from personal appearance had been declined. This Court granted the exemption from personal appearance to the petitioner. Before this Court the petitioner/accused through his counsel submitted that he does not dispute his identity and also does not object to the progress of the case in his absence and further that he will continue to appear through his counsel before the Trial Court Mr. Gulati al...

Dal Chand Vs. Secretary (Labour) and Labour Commissioner and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 67(1997)DLT466; (1997)IILLJ339Del

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is directed against respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner forthwith a sum of Rs. 9827.84 which the said respondent received from respondent No. 2. The petitioner was employed by respondent N 0.2. as a Khalasi Mazdoor and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1I, Delhi vide orders dated 18thMay, 1994 in Labour Court Application No. 7/90 computed a sum of Rs.9827.84 and passed an order infavour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2.Respondent No. 1 issued recovery certificate as far back as on 15th November, 1994 to the District Collection Officer, Delhi for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 9827.84 from respondent No. 2. The said officer recovered the sum from respondent No. 2 and deposited the same with respondent No. 1 for payment to the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1 did not proceed further in the matter and refused to pay the amount to the petitioner without any valid reason. It is unfortunate that a small sum of Rs. 9827.84 ...

Naginder Kaur Kohli Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Naginder Kaur Kohli, herein after referred to as the complainant, has been carrying on a handicraft shop in premises No. 3, WZ-69/B, Old Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi. She has been ensuring the articles of handicraft, furniture, fixtures and fittings in her shop from year to year and similarly she obtained an insurance policy for the period 18.5.89 to 17.5.90 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The landlord of the shop is one Rabel Singh and some litigation was going on between the landlord and the complainant with regard to the tenancy of the said shop. The complainant locked the shop as she had to go to Bombay for about two weeks on 25.12.93. On her return, she went to the shop on 7.1.94 and found the lower portion of the shutter broken. She suspected the involvement of the landlord and, accordingly, talked to him but she was threatened with dire consequences. She lodged a report, which was filed as DD No. 8A. This...

Ram Krishan Vs. Unit Trust of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the UTI, herein after referred to as the OP, launched a capital growth oriented scheme in April/May, 1992. Mr. Ram Krishan, complainant for short, applied for 400 units of Rs.10/- each on 12.5.92. He failed to receive the units which were supposed to be delivered upto 30th Sept., 92, despite a number of letters he wrote to the OP. He urgently needed money for the treatment of his wife and he had to raise a loan of Rs. 6,000/- on payment of interest from elsewhere in Sept., 1992. His case was that if he had received the units certificate in time, he could raise the money by disposing of the units and the units were received after a delay of about 8 months. District Forum-I dismissed the complaint observing that although there had been deficiency in service on the part of the OP in sending the units late, but since the price of the units had gone down considerably and no evidence had been led to show that the co...

Gift and Time Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT707TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Gift & Time Products, Bombay, being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, the matter relates to the classification of the composite items (i) portfolio with electronic digital clock and electronic calculator; and (ii) pen stand with electronic digital clock and electronic calculator. The appellants had sought to classify both these items as 'Other Clocks' under Heading No.91.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'). It was considered by the Revenue that on the basis of the essential character of these items, they were office equipment and were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.72 of the Tariff. Heading No. 84.72 of the Tariff covered the following: "Other office machines (for example, hectograph or stencil duplicating machines, addressing machines, automatic banknote dispensers, coin-sorting machines, coin-cou...

Dewan Chand and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT433TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1991 of Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Appellants were served with a demand notice amounting to Rs. 1,28,785.90 alleging short payment. The ld. Advocate submits that they were not served with copy of show cause notice. Subsequently, however, they came to know that a demand notice had been issued prior to detention of goods. The ld. Advocate submits that they never received a copy of show cause notice and it is only during the court proceedings today he became aware of the show cause notice after perusal of the file when ld. DR confirmed that demand of Rs. 1,48,785.90 on the ground of incorrect exchange rate had been issued. The total amount relating to incorrect exchange rate is only Rs. 90,752/- as conceded by Collector (Appeals) also in this order dated 28-2-1997. Collector (Appeals), however, has travelled beyond the order of Assistant Collector in recording that appellants availed concessional duty pending submissi...

Desai Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT702TriDel

1. This is an Appeal filed by M/s. Desai Trading Co., Bombay against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 24-7-1987 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector dated 23-7-1986.2. The short question raised in the appeal relates to the correct classification of watch straps.3. The Appellants are manufacturers of different types of watch straps, metal and plastic. They claimed that their plastic watch straps are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 39.22 and ~ claimed exemption under Notification No. 132/86 on the ground that their product is an article of plastic. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector who held that the item was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 92.13 which clearly mentioned watch straps, watch bands and watch bracelets and parts thereof.4. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the finding of adjudicating officer. The present appeal is against the said order.5. When the matter was...

Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT381TriDel

1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 18-3-1994 passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, who has confirmed the demands raised under Section 28(1) of Customs Act for the short levy of Rs. 4,28,741.21. The facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a Bill of Entry No. 101349, dated 26-11-1987 through their Clearing Agent to clear the value of the goods of Rs. 1,96,423.10 (CIF) imported from Taiwan and declared as "Garment Accessories, Elastic cloth in running length" (13 mm. width). The goods were assessed to duty under Chapter heading 5906.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Chapter heading No.5905.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for CVD purpose at the rate of 100% (basic) + 45% (aux.) + 12% (CVD). The total duty assessed came to Rs. 3,45,131.05 on an assessable value of Rs. 1,97,896.25. The party had self assessed their goods and deposited a duty amount of Rs. 3,59,676.45.2. On 14-3-1988 the Asstt. Collector, Customs Audit vide his letter dated 14-3-1988 i...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modipon Fibres Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT674TriDel

1. This is a department's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 15-4-1996.2. Ld. DR stated that M/s. Modipon Fibres Co., Modinagar were disallowed Modvat credit on following items by the Assistant Commissioner hold-ing that these goods cannot be considered as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 :- 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the party's appeal partly by allowing Modvat credit on all the above mentioned items except on Temperature Censors, Industrial Filter elements (components of D.G. set and libra Accessories (weighing scale) observing as under :- "As regards credit under Rule 57Q on temperature censors and industrial filter elements (components of D.G. Set) and libra accessories (weighing scale) I found that the same was not admissible for the relevant period as the provisions for allowing credit on these items were incorporated vide Notification No. 11/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 16-3-1995 and the credit relates to prio...

Rajdhani Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Maheshwari

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)77; [1999]96CompCas837(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT493

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th July, 1994 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in Rca 438/93 arising out of judgment dated 29.9.93 passed by the Sub Judge in Civil Suit No. 59/93 dismissing the plaintiff/respondent's suit for injunction. (2) Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal u/Section 100, Civil Procedure Code are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant/defendant on the allegations that the appellant company being licencee of the suit premises, had refused to vacate the same after termination of the licence. The suit was resisted by the appellant-Company on the ground that it was in occupation of the suit accommodation as the tenant of the respondent No. 1 and the agreement dated 1.9.75 (Ex Public Witness Public Witness 1/1) executed between the parties is a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. It was also averred that the respondent N...