Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

Gautam Auto Vs. Kiran Prabha

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. Kiran Prabha, complainant for short, purchased one Bajaj Super Scooter from an authorised dealer of M/s. Bajaj Automobiles Ltd. on 16.10.1989. At that time the dealer was M/s New United Motors. During the pendency of these proceedings the management was taken over by M/s Gautam Auto Ltd. and they were duly brought on record. According to the complainant she was handed over receipt No. 489909 issued by Registering Authority showing the registration number of the scooter No. 3316. The complainant submitted the said receipt and received registration book. After some time she discovered that the engine number and chassis number were not correctly given in the registration book. She approached the dealer and having failed to get the correction made a complaint before D.F.-II against the manufacturer and the said dealer. The plea of the opp. parties was that the mistake was pointed out to the Registering Author...

Excel Circuits P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT670TriDel

1. The appellants herein imported 1 No. of pulse width modulator module GA-4564-1 vide Bill of Entry dated 20-10-1989 and cleared the same on payment of duty on 21-10-1989 as goods covered by CTH 8473.30. Later, they preferred a refund claim for refund of duty on 28-11-1989 on the ground that the imported item is driller/router consisting of central processing unit and I/O cards which interface the machine and the CPU.The controller also consists of tape recorder and battery back up units. The spare module 'pulse width modulator' is mounted integral to the machine and controls the position of X axis, Y axis or axis motors and on this basis, the importers asked for refund on the ground that the goods should have been assessed under CTH 8466.93 as parts of drilling machine. The Assistant Collector, however, held that the goods being populated PCBs would not merit classification under Heading 8466.93. The lower appellate authority has noted in para 3 of the impugned order that the goods ...

Devidayal Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT147TriDel

1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Devidayal Rolling Mills, Bombay being aggrieved by two separate orders in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. As in both the appeals common issue of duty liability with regard to copper wire rods produced from duty paid copper wire bars is involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. We have heard Shri Jawahar Lal, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent Revenue. We have gone through the facts on record and have given our due consideration and thought to the issue involved in both these proceedings.3. We find that in his Order-in-Appeal No. ADN : 127/B1/91, dated 21-3-1991, which is the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. E/833/91-B1, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had referred to the earlier orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) - Order-in-Appeal No. PPM/585/B1 265/87-B1, dated 18-8-1987, which had come up before the Tribun...

Smt. Mukhtiari Vs. Gugan and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1(1997)DLT68; II(1997)DMC305

ORDER1. Marriage, it is said, is like twirling a baton, or turning hard springs or eating with chopsticks. It looks easy until one tries it. The parties to the petition tried many decades back and failed. Now in their seventies, they are fighting in Court over their failures. 2. More than a decade ago, finding that her husband, the respondent before me, was not even providing for her maintenance, the petitioner moved a petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, on September 19, 1984, the parties arrived at a compromise with regard to the demands of the petitioner and moved a joint petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate containing the terms of settlement. It ran as under : 'The applicant respectfully submits as under : That in the above noted case the parties have compromised out of their sweet will without any force coercion to the following effect. 1. That the respondent husband Gagan has given complete accommodation to the petitioner situated in his ho...

M.G.F. (India) Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Chand Chopra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)165; 71(1998)DLT737; 1998(44)DRJ604

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is filed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 for filing the Arbitration Agreement- dated 30th March, 1991 in Court and for an order for reference of the disputes between the parties to the named Arbitrator therein Shri Shashi Vansh Bahadur, Advocate. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and has its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002. It carries on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. It is further stated that Shri Arun Mitter is the constituted Attorney and also a Principal Officer of the petitioner company and is duly authorised to sign and verify the pleadings and to institute this suit. (2) Respondent No. 1, it is stated, is in the business of sale of Auto Spare Parts and he entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the petitioner on March 30, 1991 for taking on Hire-purchase a vehicle being New Truck Model 1991 bearing Engine No. 692 D025 37137, Chas...

NaraIn Sahai Aggarwal Vs. Santosh Rani

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1998Delhi144; 70(1997)DLT610

K.S. Gupta, J.(1) By this common order I propose to dispose of I.As. 8243 and 9343/96 filed by Narain Sahai Aggarwal,petitioner,and I.A. 11297/96 filed by Smt. Santosh Rani, respondent. (2) I.A. 8243/96 has been filed, inter alia, on the allegations that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a partnership deed dated October 5,1995. Petitioner is the working partner while respondent is the sleeping partner of the partnership firm 'Sahraj Overseas'. Respondent arranged for meagre funds besides providing accommodation at 358, Kohat Enclave. Peetampura Road, New Delhi, for running the partnership business. Bulk of the funds for the business was arranged by the petitioner. It is alleged that in June, 1966 respondent forcibly ousted the petitioner from the aforesaid property and also took possession of the movable properties of the partnership firm lying there. On September 6,1996, petitioner has come to know that the respondent has contacted some property dealers of the area to dis...

Ram Kanwar Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Desh Bandhu, Member: 1. The complainant is representing in this appeal against inadequate compensation awarded to him by District Forum-II. 2. Facts in this case, stated briefly, are that the complainant made an application for allotment of 226 convertible debentures (Rights Issue) of M/s Shriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. In terms of the Rights Issue he issued a cheque for Rs. 25312/- on 12.12.92 on his bankers-respondent in the case, hereinafter referred to as OP for facility in favour of Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. A/C v. S.I.E.L. Rights Debentures. The opposite party/dishonoured the cheque with the remarks 'insufficient funds' not with-standing the fact that there was sufficient credit balance to meet the cheque amount. The result was that the debenture application of the complainant was rejected and the complainant lost the opportunity to secure the debentures, which would have allotted to him on a Rights basis. Terms of the Issue further provided that the applican...

Ece Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT284TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dated 9-1-1995, denying the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Molywire in the manufacture of filaments for bulbs/tubes, which is consumed during the process but held to be hit by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. While passing the order, the Collector (Appeals) has followed his previous order passed by him.2. The learned Advocate submits that the issue is no longer res Integra and in their own case the Tribunal in Final Order No. A/564/97-NB, dated 24-4-1997 1998 (97) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal) has held that the Modvat credit is admissible on Molywire used in electric bulb. The Tribunal has followed the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Kalpana Lamps & Components Ltd. as reported in 1996 (17) RLT 898. The Tribunal in the case of Kalpana Lamps & Components Ltd. has taken into consideration the Larger Bench's judgment rendered in the case of Union Carbide Indi...

Punjab Expeller Industries Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT564TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Punjab Expeller Industries, Ludhiana, the matter relates to the calculation of the aggregate value of clearances for the purposes of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.2. Shri Hari Om Arora, Advocate stated that the personal hearing before the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh was held on 26-10-1988 and thereafter the adjudicating authority has called for some report and the report is dated 10-4-1989 as mentioned in the order and that no copy of the report was given to the appellants. He submitted that reliance on such report, obtained subsequent to the hearing was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants in appeal before the Tribunal had contested the report and have submitted that in place of the sale price of the traded goods the old purchase price had been taken for arriving at the deductions from the value taken in the Show Cause Notice.4. We find that the adjudicating autho...

Calama Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT379TriDel

1. The appellants, M/s. Calama Industries Ltd. filed the appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 13-1-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, whereby the following items of their products were classified as under : 2. The Revenue also filed an appeal against the same impugned order with the prayer that the items Cable Guard I Stage Q12 be classified under sub-heading No. 85.38 of the Central Excise Tariff and on the ground that in the impugned order, there is no mention about the legibility of the assessee and under the Notification No. 64/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986.3. The appellants M/s. Calama Industries submitted that they filed the classification list w.e.f. 21-8-1986 and classified the above mentioned items under Chapter 84 sub-heading 84.13 of the Central Excise Tariff and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/86-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 236/86, dated 3-4-1986 vide which exemption was granted to the parts of submersible pumps failing under...