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.
Jai Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)874; 71(1998)DLT507
Arun B. Saharya, J.(1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against award and decree dated 26.4.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation payable to the appellant for acquisition of their land situated in Village Kureni, Delhi. (2) The piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 30.10.1963. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.1.1969 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.9.1986. (3) The question of market value of land in the same village, acquired by the very same notification, was the subject-matter of Rfa No. 598/93; Mange Ram v. Union of India, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.9.1996. In that case, the market value was assessed @ Rs. 25,000.00 per bigha. (4) Accordingly, we hold that market value of the land of the appellant in the present case als...
Saroj Srivastava Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)245; 70(1997)DLT424; 1997(43)DRJ350
Usha Mehra, J. (1) RULE. (2) Since a short point is involved in this writ petitioner hence it was taken up for disposal. (3) The petitioner has assailed the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority thereby directing withholding of promotion for a period of five years from the date she reported for duty i.e. 28th June, 1993 and further the period of her absence from duty from 7th March, 1990 to 27th June, 1993 be treated as break in service under Fr 17(A) and Rule 28 of the Ccs (Pension) Rules. (4) That the impugned order has been assailed primarily on the ground that while imposing the said penalty the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor the report of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to her. Moreover, the procedure as laid down under the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner had not been followed. The disciplinary authority without disagreeing specifically with the finding of the Enquiry Officer imp...
Baljit Kaljr Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT742
D.K. Jain, J.(1) This application for judgment under Order 12 Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code has been filed in suit for ejectment, declaration, mandatory injunction, prohibitory injunction and recovery of mesne profits. The applicant claims that defendant No. I has admitted all factual averments in the plaint, which is disputed by the said defendant. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit premises were demised to defendant No. I under the lease deed dated 24 February, 1988 for a period of three years; the tenancy expired on 24 February, 1991 by efflux of time and again on 24 February, 1994, where after it became a tenancy from month to month; the last agreed rental was Rs. 43,063.00 p.m.: the said defendant defaulted in paying rent from July, 1995 till fuly, 1996; there was a fire in the building in another portion in June, 1995, resultant whereto defendant No. 2, the Chief Fire Officer sealed the building and required installation of fire fighting- equipment; the plaintiff was w...
Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Fedders Corporation a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1997
Reported in: 1997VIAD(Delhi)53; 1997(2)ARBLR84(Delhi); 69(1997)DLT474; 1997(43)DRJ410
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The two petitioners had filed a petition against Fedders Corporation (the first respondent) for removal of the Trade Mark No. 175253 and in the alternative for rectification. The second respondent is the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi. The petitioner Nos. I and 2 are the same except that the petitioner No. 1 is a limited Company controlled by the same persons who are the partners in petitioner No. 2. (2) The case of the petitioners tersely stated is this. In the year 1956, M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company, New Delhi, adopted the trade make FEDDERS. M/s .Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company it may be noticed was in the control of the persons who are now representing the petitioners. M/s. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. applied for its registration under Application No. 175253 dated 18.7.1956. On 16.11.1996, it was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 179. By virtue of agreement between the Lloyd Electric and Engineering Co. and Fedders Quig...
Leader Engineering Works Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT562TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order dated 12-10-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection of Modvat credit of Rs. 1,48,230/- taken by the appellants on invalid documents and also confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under Rule 173(Q)(i)(bb) of Central Excise Rules. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants had taken Modvat credit of duty on the strength of GP 1 No. 000811/011, dated 14-7-1993 vide Entry No. 262 in RG 23A Pt II account. It was found that the Gate Pass in question did not contain the name and address and licence number, PLA number and name of the excisable commodity. It was also noticed that the gate pass had been issued by M/s. Arihant Ship Brakers. It was noticed that according to Modvat rules, credit of duty is allowed if the duty had been paid on the inputs and the duty paying character of the inputs had clearly been established on the strength of the relative documents under the cover of which the goods have been received. ...
B.H.E.L. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT413TriDel
1. The appellants drew our attention to the Circular No. COD/11/96, dated 16-4-1996 circulated by the Under Secretary of the Cabinet wherein Committee of Secretaries have permitted the appellants to persue the matter before the Tribunal by giving clearance. Accordingly, we proceed to hear both the sides to pass this order.2. The point to be considered in this case is whether Protective Equipment imported by the appellants is classifiable under 85.18/27(2) as per department or under 85.18/27(3) as per the assessee. The relevant Tariff Entry is as under :- 85.18/27 - Electrical capacitors; electrical apparatus for making and breaking electrical circuits for the protection of electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits; resistors other than heating resistors; printed circuits; switchboards (other than telephone switchboards) and control panels; electric filament lamps and discharge lamps, are lamps; electronic valves and tubes; photocells; mounted piezo-el...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT652TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. only issue for our consideration is that the parts and components which were imported for use in the manufacture of fuel efficient car, when found damaged before their use and not actually used in the manufacture of such fuel efficient car will be or will not be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of fuel efficient cars and for that purpose were importing parts and components under Notification No. 268/84-Cus., dated 30-10-1984 as amended. The goods were warehoused and thereafter cleared from the warehouse. When they were received in the factory and were actually put to use, it was found that they were damaged and were not fit for use for the purpose for which they had been imported. In terms of the aforesaid notification the importer had furnished an undertaking that the components imported shall be used for the specified purpose and that differenti...
Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1997
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT624TriDel
1. Case called none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, we find that issue involved in this case has been covered by the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. v.Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1997 (21) RLT 275 (CEGAT-Larger Bench).2. Whether spare parts can be considered as components for the purpose of grant of benefit of Notification No. 156/86-Cus., dated 1-3-1986 in terms of the said notification, is issue to be considered in this case.3. We find that by majority it has been decided that component parts referred to in the notification under consideration is covered spare parts and benefit of notification would be available also in respect of import refractory bricks intended for use as spare parts. Since the issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench, following the same, we accept the contention of the assessee and accordingly the appeal is disposed of....
Rampion Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT532TriDel
1. Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Manager (Administration) appearing on behalf of the appellant have submitted a number of documents, printed literature etc. to plead that the goods imported and described as Eye-sight testing machine automatic in the Bill of Entry and in the invoice, was a colour vision testing equipment. He had submitted that the equipment in addition to colour vision testing was also capable of testing other defects in the eye sight and that the benefit of Notification No.144/88-Cus., should not be denied to the equipment only on the ground that it could also test other defects in the eye sight.2. Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR, submits that the appellants have filed the technical literature only now before the Tribunal and all these materials were not before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay when he decided the matter confirming the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs.3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that all these materials were not before t...
Bee Dee Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT321TriDel
1. In this stay application, the applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 60,339.12 and penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/-.Initially by show cause notice, the department had intended to deny the Modvat credit of Rs. 3,97,168.76. However, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the Modvat credit of Rs. 2,33,970.76 in respect of Chaallans appearing at Sl. Nos. 4 to 7 of Annexure A to the show cause notice and disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 1,63,198/- in respect of Challans appearing at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 to the show cause notice and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. On appeal, the Commissioner accepted the Challans at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 and granted the benefit of Modvat credit to the extent of 1,02,859.88 in respect of 3 invoices. However, he has not accepted the Challan No. 113, dated (sic) Sl. No. 8 of Annexure A to the show cause notice, involving Modvat credit of Rs. 60,339.12 and has retained the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The appellants had procured bloom (billets) to the ext...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »