Delhi Court November 1998 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.
Sukhmal JaIn Vs. Bhagwati Devi and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT905; 1999(48)DRJ273; 1999RLR129
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J. 1. The present petition is directed against the Orders dated 6th December, 1994 and 9th May, 1996 respectively passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The first Order declined to entertain the application for leave to defend on merits as it was filed after 17 days of service and the delay was held not condonable. The second Order disposed of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condensation of delay in filing an application for leave to defend which was also dismissed. 2. The admitted facts are that the respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (herein- after referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner was served on 30th April, 1994. The summons were allegedly delivered to him at the address 387 Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan though a plea was taken that the process server could not have gone to this address when the address was no...
Bestochem Formulations Vs. Dinesh Ayurvedic Agencies and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT972
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off of the trade mark of the plaintiff as also the copyright of the plaintiff and also for rendition of accounts.2. The defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on various grounds raised in the application. One of the grounds taken in the said application is that the present suit is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The defendants have stated that on the date when the present suit was filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was an unregistered firm and since no suit could be instituted by a Partnership firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm, the suit is barred and, thereforee, is liable to be dismissed on that count alone. It is, however, necessary to mention that apa...
Rajinder Parshad JaIn Vs. Bal Gopal Das
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)589; 77(1999)DLT478; 1999RLR151
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Three matters are before the Division Bench on reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. To appreciate the scope of reference and the question arising for decision it will be necessary to set out the factual background of each of the three cases in brief.2. SAO 299/80 (Rajinder Prasad Jain v. Bal Gopal Dass & Ors) The premises are having municipal No.4896, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Rajinder Prasad, the landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenants Shri Balgopal Dass & Ors on the ground available under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short). According to the landlord, the premises were let out for residential purpose only. However, the same are being used by the tenant for non-residential purpose as well. The user of the premises is in contravention of the terms of the lease on which the landlord is holding the premises from the DDA. The tenant has failed to discontinue such inconsist...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wire and Fabrics Sa Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC132Tri(Delhi)
1.2 The respondents herein took Modvat credit of duty paid on import of goods imported through post parcels through Foreign Post Office.Certificate from an Appraiser in Foreign Post Office was prescribed as a document for availing Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57G by the Central Government by a Notification w.e.f. 19-1-1995. The certificates produced in the present case are of October and November 1994. On this basis the original authority denied the Modvat credit.1.3 On appeal, the respondents herein succeeded. Finding of the lower appellate authority is as follows :- "I have considered the facts and submissions made, in all the appeal. It is a fact that provisions of Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the relevant time did not specify any documents as valid document for availing Modvat credit on inputs imported through F.P.O. It was only on 19-1-1995 that an amendment was made in the said Rules so as to include the certificates issued by the Appraisers of F.P.O. as valid...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Excon Bldg. Material Mfg. Co. Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal by the Revenue is the eligibility to exemption under Notification No. 64/88 of hollow concrete blocks manufactured by M/s. Excon Building Material Manufacturing Co. Pvt.Ltd. While approving the classification the Assistant Collector allowed the said exemption. The Revenue filed an appeal against this on the ground as under : "The contention of the party that as the exemption Notification expressly mentions Blocks, Slabs, lintels etc. the same are independently and Ipso facto exemption and accepted by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay is correct. Notification No. 64/88 also clearly goes on to add that such blocks, slabs, lintels etc. are dependent on end-use and that they should essentially be part and components of pre-fabricated building and therefore, what necessarily follows is that such blocks, slabs, lintels etc. should be used in the pre-fabricated building as parts and components thereof. The assessee has at no stage been abl...
Universal Gem (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT600TriDel
1. These are two appeals involving common issue whether Thiabendazole Premix BP (VET) is a patent or Proprietary Medicine classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Shri R.G. Sheth, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants, M/s.Universal Generics Pvt. Ltd. manufacture veterinary medicaments, viz.Thiabendazole Premix BP (Vet) under Pharmacopoeia name and classified the same under sub-heading 3003.20 of the Tariff. The Assistant Collector under two orders dated 16-2-1989 and 30-6-1989 classified the impugned product under sub-heading 3003.10 holding that British Pharmacopoeia (Veterinary) had not been specified as one of the Pharmacopoeia in Note 2 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act; that Dy. Chief Chemist had clarified that Thiabendazole Premix did not figure in recognised Pharmacopoeia and the labels and packets of the impugned product were having the monogram of M/s. Dynamic Pharmacols (P) Ltd., Bombay under licence from ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Haryana Leather Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)LC135Tri(Delhi)
2. Short controversy in this appeal of the Revenue is whether the dealers who issued the invoices dated 20th July, 1994 was a registered dealer or not.2.1 In the adjudication proceedings before the Additional Collector of Central Excise, the respondents herein submitted before the said authority that both the importer and the dealer from whom he purchased the goods were registered with Central Excise Department and their registration Nos. were 1071/Dealer/DNA/R-I/94 and 1072/Dealer/DNA/R-I/94 respectively. Despite this, the adjudicating authority found in respect of these two invoices that the dealer was neither registered at the time of issue of the invoice nor the party was able to submit the copy of the registration certificate to substantiate their claim that the party got itself registered consequent to issue of Notification No. 32/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 4-7-1994.2.3 Against the aforesaid finding by the adjudicating authority on this issue the lower appellate authority has found t...
Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT256TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed by M/s. Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against the duty demand of Rs. 62,25,991.00/- and equal amount of penalty imposed on them by the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi by her order dated 4-8-1998.2. Learned Counsel, Shri Vinay Garg appearing for the appellant submitted that the issue relates to the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 108/95. The said exemption Notification provided for total exemption from excise duty on all goods falling under the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 when such goods are supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use or supplied to the projects financed by the United Nations or an international organisation and approved by the Government of India. The proviso to the said notification reads as under :- "Provided that before clearance of the said goods, the manufacturer produces before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over his fact...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. New Jack Printing Works (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT440TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the printed hangers are classifiable under sub-heading 4823.90 as claimed by the Revenue or 4901.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. No one was present on behalf of the respondents. We, therefore, heard Shri Sumit Das, learned JDR and perused the records.3. We observe that the Collector (Appeals) has mentioned in the impugned order, after seeing the impugned product, that it consists of tapering sheets of paper bearing pictorial representation of a human being next to a television set with the letters in bold black capitals "Salora" in English script on one side and the Devanagari script on the other. The Collector (Appeals) observed that the product by itself has no functional utility; it is hung in shops as an advertisement display.The Collector (Appeals) classified the impugned product under Chapter 49 holding that the essential cha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajdhani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR855(Delhi)
1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the question raised by the Revenue does arise as a question of law, from the order of the Tribunal referable to the assessment year 1988-89. The petition is, thereforee, allowed. The Tribunal shall draw up a statement of the facts of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the composition fee payable to the DDA is allowable deduction under Section 24(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »