Delhi Court September 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.
Power Build Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT146TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.2. Whether Control Panel is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the assessee or under Tariff Item 45 as per the department is the issue to be considered in this case.3. When the matter was posted for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, it was requested by them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri D.S. Negi, ld. DR.4. It was submitted by the appellants in their written submissions that classification filed by the party in classifying the item under Tariff Item 68 was duly approved and subsequently in view of the audit objection, show cause notice was issued that Control Panel is classifiable under old Tariff Item 45 on the ground that they had a built-in-'Weighing Electronic' for measuring loads. It was the contention of the party that the Control Panel could not be independently funct...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Sunder Lal Taneja and Sons and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)228; 1997(43)DRJ599
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Defendants have filed this application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking direction for return of the title deed of property bearing No. 9/60, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, by the plaintiff-Bank, on their securing the suit amount or any amount which may be ultimately found due from them.(2) Needless to say that the plaintiff-Bank has contested the application by filing reply.(3) Submission advanced by Shri Ravinder Sethi appearing for the defendants was that his client is ready to furnish bank guarantee or place FDRs at the disposal of the Court for the suit amount besides giving security for the balance amount for return of the title deed in question by the plaintiff-Bank. Admittedly plaintiff-Bank has filed suit under Order Xxxiv Civil Procedure Code against the defendants and para 21 of the prayer clause made in the plaint which is relevant reads as under: 'PRAYER: 1.It is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that: (A)That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to...
A. Rajagopalan Vs. Murugan Textiles
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)177; 73(1998)DLT508; 1998(46)DRJ387; (1998)119PLR39
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) This order will govern the disposal of I.A Nos. 7460/94 & 7486/94. (2) Plaintiff filed I.A. 7460/94 under Order Xxii, Rule 4 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code alleging that the suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 19,51,343.40P. is pending against the defendants. On May 2, 1994, Counsel for defendants informed the Court that defendant No. 4 died on February, 1, 1994. Plaintiff did not have any information about the death of defendant No. 4. Thereafter, plaintiff tried to find out the names of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant and on July 21, 1994 he came to know that he left behind V. Rajaram and Smt. C.N. Bhagirathi as L.Rs. It was prayed that both of them may be imp leaded as L.Rs. of deceased defendant No. 4. (3) I.A. 7486/94 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condensation of delay in filing I.A. 7460/94. (4) Plaintiff has filed his own affidavits in support of the averments made in both the applications. (5) Needless to say that prop...
Union Public Service Commission Vs. S. Papaiah
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 1998RLR38
A.S.Anand, J. (1) ED. Facts: In I.F.S. Exam., respondent was a candidate who sat in me test at a Hyderabad Centre. Upsc received a complaint of unfair means by respondent no. 1 with the connivance of respondent no. 2. Complaint was made to Cbi for investigation on 27.9.93. It was registered on 19.10,93 and was entrusted to T.N. Rao, S.P. The Fir was lodged with 5th Mm on 12.9.94. Cbi sought closure of the case u/s 173 without informing Upsc in spite of request. Mm on 5.12.94 returned final report as Cbi had not Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah filed copy of the report required to be issued to UPSC. On 24.12.94, Cbi resubmitted report with copy of notice to UPSC. Mm again returned the report seeking proof of service of notice to Upsc and telling Upsc to file its objections. On 6.1.95 Cbi re-submitted the report Along with acknowledgement of UPSC. But is did not indicate, if it had complied with order of Mm about filing objections by UPSC. Report was again returned to the Cb...
J.N. Luthra Vs. S.N. Luthra
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT788
K.S. Gupta, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed suit for prohibitory & mandatory injunctions alleging J.C. Luthra, father of both the parties, had seven children -4 sons and 3 daughters. In 1954, J.C. Luthra got built house No. 151, Golf Links, New Delhi. In September, 1979, he expired and as desired by him ground floor portion of the said house, one garage and two servant quarters on the first floor fell to the share of M.M.S. Luthra, elder brother of the plaintiff while the remaining portion, of the house was to be shared jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant. Other legal heirs were adequately compensated by aforesaid J.C. Luthra. It is alleged that under an oral mutual agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, defendant was to occupy the entire second floor and one bedroom and a bath located adjacent to the staircase on the first floor of the house. Remaining portion of the first floor was to be occupied by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was residing in a Government accommodation allotte...
Mico Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT657TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals).2. The Appellants removed 380 pieces of Multi Cylinder Pumps on payment of duty of Rs. 1,27,160.08 for supplying to M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. The goods were removed on payment of duty under G.P.-I No. 227, dated 24-1-1987. Subsequently, however, they filed refund claim amounting to Rs. 65,482.40 in respect of 200 pieces of pumps which they claimed were exempted under Notification No. 217/85, dated 8-10-1985 as amended by the Notification No. 79/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. The only mistake committed was that they did not follow the Chapter X procedure.In respect of 180 Pumps they did not file refund claim since M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. had availed of Modvat credit benefit. In respect of 200 pumps, however, no credit was taken since the finished goods were exempted. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals).3. We have heard both sides. Notification...
Kinetic Honda Motor Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT372TriDel
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Scooters and internal combustion engines falling under Central Excise Tariff sub-headings 8711.00 and 8407.00 respectively, was charged with having manufactured steel furniture without observing the procedural requirements and evading Central Excise duty payable thereon. Show cause notice was issued in July, 1987 alleging non-payment of duty amounting to Rs. 7,56,400.00 on goods valued at Rs. 30,25,600.10 removed during the period February, 1986 to January, 1987. Suppression of facts regarding such manufacture was alleged and the longer period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was invoked. The notice was resisted by the appellant. After grant of personal hearing, the Collector passed the impugned order holding that, barring certain items specified by him in the order, the rest were steel furniture falling under Tariff sub-heading 9403.00. He rejected the defence pleas that (1) the items were not goods attr...
Trakru Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. International Airports Authority o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)845; 71(1998)DLT518
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The Arbitrator has filed the Award dated September 2,1984 Along with the proceedings in this Court. The same were taken on record and notice of filing of the Award was issued to the parties directing them to file their respective objections. Respondent-international Airport Authority of India filed its objectors under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Reply to these objections was filed by the claimant M/s. Trakru Projects India Private Limited. The Arbitrator made a speaking Award by assigning reasons. (2) Shri J.S. Marya was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by Chief Engineer, New International Air Terminal Complex, International Airport Authority of India to decide the disputes which had arisen between the parties by virtue of powers conferred under the provisions of Clause 25 of the Agreement NO. NITC/APD-1/ 13/82-83 executed between the parties. Clause 25 of the Agreement stipulated that the disputes arising between the parties shall be referred to the sole a...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Hira Poultry Farm and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT52
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,25,214.00 with costs and interest thereon. (2) The plaintiff is a body corporate with perpetual succession, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act (40) of 1980. It has its Head Office at 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi and can sue and be sued in its name and has a branch office at G.T. Road, Alipur Block, Singhola, Delhi. Shri Narinder Bir Singh and Shri Ram Singh, Regional Manager and Manager respectively and principal officers of the plaintiff-Bank are fully conversant with the facts of the case and they hold Powers of Attorney and are duly authorised and empowered by the plaintiff-bank to sign and verify the pleadings, file and suit and documents. The defendant No. 1 M/s. Hira Poultry Farm, is the proprietorship firm of the defendant No. 2, Mr. Balvinder Jit Singh. (3) It is alleged that defendant No. 1 through its proprietor, introduced itself to the plaintiff-Ban...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. O.C. Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1997
Reported in: 2003(162)ELT96(Del)
ORDER1. The scheme of rewarding informer will be totally unworkable, if we accept the contention that the reward amount is payable only upon the assessment being final under the statute. The assessment may go in appeals which may take more than the life time of an individual who has given information.2. We also think that the question of the suit being time barred,when the assessment is pending, does not arise.3. We are not inclined to entertain this appeal.Dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »