Delhi Court July 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.
Chloride Inds. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: (1997)LC636Tri(Delhi)
1. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 20-2-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the order dated 1-2-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pune.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electric storage batteries under four different brand names, three brand named 'Exide', 'Index' and 'Dagenite' belonging to the appellant and another brand name" Lucas' belonging to M/s. Lucas India Services Ltd. (for short, LISL). Batteries under brand name Lucas are manufactured pursuant to the franchise agreement with the owner. The entire production of Lucas batteries are sold to LISL. However, the other batteries bearing brand name of the appellant are sold to wholesale dealers. Appellant had filed different price lists in Part I showing price to wholesalers in the case of own brand name and showing price to LISL in the case of Lucas brand batteries. After approval of the price lists goods were being cleared on payment of appropriate duty.3. Show cause...
Anant Raj Agencies Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)599; 69(1997)DLT396; (1998)118PLR43
Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) This Order will dispose of the above mentioned application filed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'). The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application lie in narrow compass. The work of the construction of 8314 Houses in Sector Xv, Rohini SH: Construction of 352 Ews Houses in Block A, Pocket 5 to 7, was awarded to the petitioner and an agreement bearing No. 7/EE/RPD-4/ DDA/ 85-86 was entered into between the petitioner and the Executive Engineer of the respondent DDA. Certain disputes arose between the parties and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The disputes/differences between the parties, in terms of the arbitration clause, contained in the agreement, were referred to the arbitration of Shri L.R. Pahwa (respondent No. 2) who entered upon the reference and made and published his award...
Tara Chandra and anr. Vs. Ahmad Sultan Chawala and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)999; 68(1997)DLT138; 1997RLR528
Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.5.1997, by which the Civil Judge vacated the ex-parte order of injunction that was granted on 1.9.1993 in favor of the plaintiff. (2) The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed, while the application under Order Xxxix Rules 1 and 2, Cpc, is fixed for arghments. (3) Before the grounds on which the impugned order is assailed are considered, it would be appropriate to notice the proceedings in the suit culminating in the passing of impugned order. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction accompanied with an interim application for restraining the respondent from interfering with plaintiff's possession. Vide an ex-parte order dated 1.9.1993, the respondents/defendants were restrained from interfering in the physical possession of the petitioners till further orders. The ex-parte order continued and it was on 7.2.1996, that arguments were heard on the application under Or...
H.C. Shastri Vs. DolphIn Canpack (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)812; 67(1997)DLT665
Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) A letter bearing No. TRO-15/96-97/99 addressed to the Registrar has been put up before the Court. Let this letter be registered as an Interim Application. (2) Learned Standing Counsel for the department urged that there is an outstanding recovery to the extent of Rs. 7,27,926.00 from M/s. Dolphin Canpack Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that since a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs has been deposited by M/s. Asp Investments limited, defendant No. 3 in the main suit, the dues of the revenue to the extent of Rs. 7,27,926.00 be satisfied first and the amount to that extent, out of the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs should not be released to any party. By the said letter the Tax Recovery Officer also purported to exercise the powers under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (3) Arguments on whether the revenue could claim a lien on the amount of approximately Rs. 13 lakhs, lying in the Court were heard on 14.3.1997 when orders were reserved. By this order, I propose to decide the request made ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›