Delhi Court August 1997 Judgments

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT687TriDel

1. Appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 27-3-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellant made import of Temperature Pressure Transducers hereinafter called goods. The appellant claim classification of the goods in question under 90.24(1) of the Customs Tariff Heading. But the Revenue classified these goods under Customs Tariff Heading No.90.29(2). The appellant got clear the goods and therefore, filed a refund claim. The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the goods were classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90.24(1)..The appellant filed an appeal and the appeal was dismissed.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods imported by the appellant is a combination of pressure and temperature sensor allowing simultaneous measurement of these two parameters in a single mounting well. The transducers, so imported, contain a Strain Guage Transducer comprising of 4 resistance elements indic...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. United India Periodical (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1998]229ITR183(Delhi)

R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 relatable to the asst. yr. 1961-62, seeking direction to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of facts and refer the following two questions for the opinion of the Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of law existing as on the date of filing of original return will be applicable for the purposes of imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c), whereas even in the return filed under s. 148, the assessed had not disclosed the income which was subsequently detected and added back 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in applying the ratio of the case of CIT & Anr. vs . Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) , whereas the facts of the case are covered squarely under the case D. M. Manasvi vs . CIT : [1972]86ITR557(SC) , as a clear cut device of concealment by manipulati...

Mangal SaIn Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 71(1998)DLT761; 1997(42)DRJ766

Vijender Jain, J. (1) The award has been made by the arbitrator, Mr. R.K.Sarkar, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) D.W. Northern Railway on 6.8.1993. The respondent - Uoi has filed objections to the award.(2) Learned counsel for the respondent - Uoi Mr. Bhatia, has contended that the award has to be set-aside in view of the grant of claim Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Bhatia has contended that the award on these claims are outside the terms and conditions of the contract and arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction. He has also contended that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings by awarding this amount.(3) On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-petitioner has contended that claim No. 2 was for expenses incurred for clearing the site and on account of no work executed apart from this head, claim No. 2 was for whatever work executed and no payment made also. The arbitrator on this head awarded a sum of Rs. 9750/= out of total claim of Rs. 25,...

M.L. Sharma Vs. State Trading Corporation of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT1; 1997(43)DRJ290

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of three petitions being Suit No. 2369/91 (M/s M.L.Sharma & Company v. State Trading Corporation), Suit No. 2370/91 (M/s M.L.Sharma & Company v. State Trading Corporation) and Suit No. 2371/91 (M/s-M.L.Sharma & Company v. State Trading Corporation) as they raise common questions and were decided by the respective awards by the same arbitrator. (2) The respondent State Trading Corporation (for short STC) entered into three separate contracts dated July 6, 1979 for the work of Sanitary installations and plumbing works for Community Centre Project at Stc Colony, New Delhi; dated November 12, 1979 for the work of external services for Community Centre Project at Stc Colony, New Delhi and dated July 8, 1980 for construction of compound wall and underground tank at Stc Colony, New Delhi. (3) Certain disputes arose out of the execution of the works and such disputes were referred in the respective petitions filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration...

M.L. Mahajan Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)42; 1997(2)ARBLR430(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT734; 1997(43)DRJ73

C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition is filed under Section - 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for issuance of direction to the arbitrator, respondent No. 2 herein, to file the award Along with the proceedings in this Court and on filing of the same the parties may be informed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.(2) Notice of the petition was issued. The award and the proceedings have been filed by the arbitrator and the petitioner as well as the respondent Delhi Development Authority, have filed their respective objections.(3) The petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 1 for the construction of 84 Mig houses at Bodella (Vikaspuri) Pocket-GG-III including internal development (balance work). The agreement entered into between the parties contained an arbitration clause for reference of disputes to the arbitrator in the manner, as provided in the same. Clause 25 of the Agreement reads as follows: 'CLAUSE 25. Except where otherwise provided in the cont...

Bhim Sen Garg Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)649; 68(1997)DLT135; 1997(42)DRJ559

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petitioner has sought the quashing of the First Information Report registered under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of one Ms.Jyotana Gandotra. (2) Ms. Jyotana Gandotra used to work for a company known as Garment Craft. It was owned by the petitioner. On February 20, 1996 she lodged a written complaint with the Station House Officer, Greater Kailash-1 that instead of giving her yearly increment and the Commission due on turn-over, the petitioner rebuked and insulted her and in the month of October, 1995 obtained her resignation under duress. The rest of what she alleged in that complaint needs to be narrated in her own words. She complained: 'Mr.Bhim Sain (the petitioner) has been regularly visiting his factory and also M/s. Progetti Kautan and has been every time threatening me and demanding from me full and final settlement of accounts and has also been sending Harbhajan Singh Along with two other persons to my house to threaten and haras...

Surinder Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 71(1998)DLT801

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The appellant has been convicted under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S. Act (for short 'the Act') by Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated January 19, 1993. By a subsequent order dated January 20,1993 the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. l,00,000.00 . (2) On December 9, 1989 at about 4.35 p.m. the appellant was intercepted at the S.B.T. by the Investigating Officer Si Ram Sewak (Public Witness -5), Asi 0m Prakash and Constables Raj Pal and Rameshwar. On the search of the petitioner he was found in possession of 30 kgs. of poppy powder. (3) This appeal raises a short point. The question to be determined is whether the petitioner was given notice under Section 50 of the Act before his search was effected by the Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution was able to prove that a notice under Section 50 of the Act w...

Munish Sahni Vs. State Bank of India and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Manish Sahni, complainant for short, applied for allotment of 100 equity shares of Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI) respondent No. 2. For the purpose, he made Application No. 0426399 dated 8.12.1993 alongwith application money of Rs.3,500/-in the form of a cheque. The application was submitted in me State Bank of India, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 and the receipt thereon was endorsed by putting stamp of the State Bank of India. The complainant failed to receive any allotment advice. He, therefore, wrote to respondent No. 2. He was informed that no application had been received from the applicant through respondent No. 1. The complainant approached District Forum-II claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service. The plea of the State Bank of India, respondent No. 1 was that no application was received from the complainant and there was no privity of contract with the complainant. Respondent No. 2 also d...

Collector Central Excise Vs. Executive Engineer

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT505TriDel

1. This reference application is filed by the department against Final Order No. 88/97-D, dated 27-1-1997 (Appeal No. 470/89-D).2. According to the department, following question is required to be referred to the High Court for its considered opinion :- "Whether extended time limit for issue of show cause notice (issued on 28-11-1984) would be applicable or not in view of manufacture of excisable goods by the assessee without obtaining Central Excise licence and also without observing other Central Excise formalities as required under the law?" 3. Heard Shri D.S. Negi, learned DR on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee was represented by Shri R.M. Mishra, Asstt. Engineer.4. Assessee Executive Engineer manufactured and cleared R.C.C. pipes without obtaining Central Excise licence without payment of duty and without observing the Central Excise formalities, for which a show cause notice dated 28-11-1984 was issued.5. Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings confirmed deman...

Surender Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997(2)ARBLR401(Delhi); 68(1997)DLT189

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) The petitioner, named above, has filed the presser petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer that Shri S.C. Kaushal ( Respondent No. 2) be directed to file the award Along with the proceedings and thereafter further orders in the matter a may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed. (2) On petitioner's filing the above petition, it was directed vide order da tec 22nd November, 1993 that a notice be issued to Shri S.C. Kaushal ( respondent No 2) directing him to file the award Along with the proceedings. In pursuance of notice received from this Court the Sole Arbitrator Shri S.C. Kaushal ( respondent No. 2 ) filed the award Along with the proceedings vide Letter No. F(Retd.)/SE.ARBN.II/ DDA/16 which was received in the Registry of this Court on 20.1.1994. (3) After the receipt of the award dated the 24th September, 1993 Along with the proceedings from the end of the ...