Delhi Court July 1997 Judgments

instalment Supply Limited Vs. Ram NaraIn Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT12

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 26th February, 1993 in Court and for an order for reference to the disputes between the parties to the named arbitrator therein Shri Ramesh Chand, Advocate. 2. The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 46, Janpath, New Delhi. It carries on the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles. It is further stated that Shri Krishen Bans Bahadur is the Managing Director of the petitioner company and is duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and to file the present petition. The petitioner, it is stated, on 26th February, 1993 on receipt of proposal from respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as guarantor for hiring a Tata Diesel Bus Model LP/52 bearing chasis No. 344050 430956, Engine No. 692 D23 448013 and bearing registration No. MP-06B0065 executed a Hire Purchase Ag...

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. University of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT75

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is a citizen of India and he and his forefathers have deep roots in Delhi for the last 50 years. Though he has been living abroad for more than 15 years, at present he is residing at K-310, Kangra Niketan, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. The petitioner has a daughter who has passed her 10+2 Examination (XII Standard) from the Indian School, Safat, Kuwait which is approved by the Ministry of Education, Kuwait and is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education. New Delhi. The petitioner's daughter wants to join for Mbbs Course in one of the Colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The University of Delhi has invited applications on the prescribed proforma for admission to first year Mbbs Course. The admissions are based on entrance examination. As per the Bulletin of Information issued by the University, a candidate will be eligible for MBBS/BDS entrance examination conducted by the University of De...

Hemant Kumar Mandovra Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT91

Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) The petitioner completed his Mbbs Course and internship from the Mgm Medical College, Indore and associated hospitals in 1996. He appeared at the All India Entrance Examination for Admission to Post Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in the year 1997. He secured rank 381 and was called for counselling on 8th March, 1997. At the time of counselling the daily vacancy position of all Colleges and subjects for 8.3.1997 was displayed. The courses. recognised by the Medical Council of India and the courses not recognised by the Medical Council of India were clearly indicated. The candidates seeking admission/ allotment of seats were required to give a declaration after selecting the College and the subject. The petitioner accordingly gave a declaration choosing a seat in Ms (Orthopaedics) (Subject Code A-12) in Government Medical College, Surat, (College Code B-13). As per the vacancy position of Colleges and subjects for 8.3.1997 displayed by the respondents the Cours...

Rajinder Kumar @ Titoo Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)601; 1998CriLJ51; 70(1997)DLT585; 1997(42)DRJ536

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On the fateful day of July 14, 1988 at about 7.15 P.M. the appellant was arrested under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter called 'the Act'). The allegation was that he was in possession of 1 Kg. of heroin. He was convicted and sentenced under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on July 21, 1992. The appeal comes up today for final disposal.(2) Should I confirm the order or set him free? I feel he deserves freedom. The reasons are not far to seek.(3) The only witness from the public who was introduced to lend support to the alleged recovery has not supported the prosecution version. As if all this was not enough, we find that he himself had been falling prosecution in as many as four cases. Joining such a witness in a raiding party itself makes the entire investigation look inauspicious.(4) Yet another ground which prompts me to decide the appeal in favor of the appellant is offer under Se...

Capital Rubber Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)71

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J.M. :The assessed has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A)-X, New Delhi, dt. 11th March, 1996, mainly on the ground of not treating Capital Rubber Industries as a partnership concern prior to 1985 which purchased a plot No. 327, Modern Industrial Estate, Bahadurgarh (Haryana), and not allowing the deduction of Rs. 2,11,314 made to HUDA in 1992 as part of cost of improvements while computing the capital gains as also for charging interest under ss. 234B and 234C.2. In this case, the assessed had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 19,33,940. A revised return was filed on 15th October, 1993, declaring total income of Rs. 23,25,300. Another revised return was filed on 11th January, 1995, declaring a total income of Rs. 21,10,930. The AO observed that during the year, the only income of the assessee-firm was on account of long-term capital gain which had arisen due to sale of an industrial plot to its sister concern namely, Relax Footwears ...

Raminder Singh Duggal Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals together with dispensation applications have been filed against the common Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)III/30-43/92, dated 19-10-1992 under which various penalties on the appellants, aggregating to Rs. 3 crores and 22 lakhs, have been imposed for contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) mentioned in twelve show-cause notices which, together with two others, were the subject-matter of adjudication under section 50, read with section 51, of the Act. 2. After hearing the parties, we decided to waive the requirement of pre-deposit in all the cases and proceeded to hear the appeals on merits. The reasons for which the waiver from pre-deposit was granted were that the impugned order was made ex parte without giving due opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves and that the adjudicating authority held adjudication proceedings considering the replies to the show-cause notices and forming an opinio...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT545TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., the matter relates to the eligibility of the Air Conditioner procured by the appellants for their factory Telephone Exchange under Notification No. 56/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978. The concessional rate of duty under Notification No.57/78-C.E. was available, among others, to the Air Conditioners for Telephone Exchange. The Collector (Appeals) had held that the concession under that Notification No. 56/78-C.E. was not available to private Telephone Exchange establishments.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 9-7-1997. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.3. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, who is present for the respondent/Revenue. We find that under Notification No. 56/78-C.E. the concessional rate of duty in favour of Air Conditioners had been provided when used, among others, in Telephone Exchange. In common parlance, Telephone Exchange is from where different independent lines to independent customers are exchanged. I...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Srikrishna Spg. and Wvg. Mills (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT545TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for transfer of the appeal to Madras Bench. Having heard the facts of the case, we are not inclined to order transfer of the appeal.We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant being a job worker was filing price lists from time to time and clearing goods on payment of duty on the basis of approved price lists. Approved price included also the profit margin of the buyer who had supplied raw materials. In the case of Baggaram Enterprises, Bangalore (Appeal No. E/1181/85-A), the Tribunal by Final Order No. 393/86-A [reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 356 (Tribunal)] held that the profit margin of the buyer cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods produced by the job worker. On coming to know of this decision the respondent filed a claim for refund of duty referable to such margin of profit. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that duty had been paid on...

Devidayal Non-ferrous Indus. (P) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT556TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Devidayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt.Ltd., the matter relates to the applicability of exemption under Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 to the Dies for Drawing Metal Strips. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division "E", Bombay-I, had taken a view that the Dies used for drawing strips were not covered by the aforesaid Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The appeal filed by M/s. Devidayal Non-Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. was rejected by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits.2. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, who is present for the respondent/Revenue and have gone through the facts on record.3. The Notification No. 58/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 is reproduced below :- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Depart...

Garware Plastics and Polyester Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT516TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Garware Plastics & Polyester Ltd., Bombay, the matter relates to the classification of the cover made of plastics for Video Cassette. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Video Cassette Covers made out of Polystyrene. They had classified these covers under Heading No. 39.22 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification was approved by the concerned Central Excise Officers without any change. Subsequently, an application under Section 35E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was filed and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay held that the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 85.23 and not under Heading No. 39.22 of the Tariff.2. The appellants have filed written submissions and have prayed for decision on merits.3. In their written submissions, they had referred to the Tribunal's decision in their own case on Revenue's appeal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I v. Garware Plastics & Polyes...