Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 10 of about 161 results (0.021 seconds)Chattarbhun Vs. M.C.D.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT37; 1998(46)DRJ262
Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this civil contempt petition, alleging non-compliance with the directions given by a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 3853/95. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition, directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to perform their statutory duties by taking appropriate action in accordance with law to demolish the unauthorized construction in the building in question within a period of eight weeks from the date of order i.e. 24.5.1996. 2. The property in question is House No. EA-114, Inder Puri, New Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be the original owner. The Interveners are stated to be in possession of first and second floor and claim to have purchased the same.3. After the order was passed in the writ petition, Interveners filed LPA No. 134/96, before the Division Bench, where it was contended by the appellants/Interveners that the petitioner himself had raised unauthorised construction...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Ram Sahni and Sons Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corpn ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(45)DRJ587
J.B. Goel, J.1. The work of levelling and dressing of Blocks A, C & E at Narela Industrial Complex was awarded in the petitioner alter inviting the lenders on 25.2.1982 and an agreement No. DSHIDC/PE(N)/Accounts/81-82 dated 12.3.1982 was executed between the parties. The work was to be completed within six months but was actually completed on 30.3.1983. The petitioner executed the work specified in the agreement and also some extra item of work. Some payments were also made for the work agreed to be done but no payment has been made for the extra item of work. The respondent did not agree to pay for the extra item of work of filling of earth and compaction work in a ditch and also for work of excavation done in excess of agreed quantities; work done is alleged to be defective for which penalty has been imposed. Disputes arose between the parties about the quality and quantity of the work done and the amounts payable to the petitioner. The agreement between the parties in its Clause 25 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]247ITR236(Delhi)
1. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction vide order dated September 26, 1994, made under Section 18(4) read with Section 19(3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), had sanctioned rehabilitation/amalgamation scheme for amalgamating Mahinra Nissan Allwyn Limited (MNAL) with Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Under the scheme, certain amounts were to be spent by Mahindra and Mahindra during the financial year 1993-94 to the financial year 1996-97. In terms of the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction dated September 26, 1994, the tax benefit under Section 72A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was restricted to Rs. 22.32 crores. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to a higher amount of tax benefit. By order dated December 29, 1995 (annexure G at page 183), the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction held that the case of the petitioner no longer requires to be dealt with under the Sick Industrial Companies (Spec...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Vishal Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT557TriDel
1. This is a department's appeal filed w.r.t. the order of Commissioner (A), Ghaziabad dated 5-2-1997.2. Ld. DR drew attention towards the grounds of appeal and stated that the main grievance of the department is that the Commissioner (A) has allowed Modvat benefit on the basis of Tribunal's order in the case of Haji Moosa Patrawala reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) whereas the department has filed a reference application against the said order and the Tribunal has already referred the matter accordingly to the High Court.3. Ld. Counsel stated that actually in this case the gate pass was issued on 12-3-1994 by the IPCL factory to self-IPCL Depot near Balwant Farm House, Delhi as evident from a copy of the gate pass produced. The IPCL depot endorsed it (the entire quantity) to M/s. Print Crafts (vide order dated 26-3-1994). M/s. Print Crafts are first buyers and according to the respondents the wholesale dealers.4. M/s. Print Crafts in turn endorsed the entire quantity to M/s...
Tag this Judgment!L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1164TriDel
1. This case involves eligibility of caustic soda as input for sugar industry for the purposes of Modvat credit.2. I have heard Shri Kapil Vaish, C.A. for the appellants and Shri Y.R.Kilania, JDR for the Revenue.3. Caustic soda is used for three purposes: The first purpose is demineralisation of boiler feed water which is converted into steam which steam is used for production of sugar. The Tribunal in the case of Orient Paper Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 501 (Tribunal) held that caustic soda lye for demineralisation of boiler water was eligible input.4. The second purpose to which the caustic soda solution is put is in mixing with spray water in the vacuum pan to counteract the liberated sulphuric acid fumes. In this process caustic soda is used directly in the manufacture of sugar and, therefore, its admissibility becomes evident.5. The third use of this caustic soda was for descaling of evaporator and pan bodies tubes. In two judgments ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. K.K. Interlining
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT174TriDel
1. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of different varieties of 100% cotton fabrics such as Bleached Sheetings, Scoured Sheetings, Dyed Sheetings and Grey Sheetings, filed Classification List Nos. 36/90-91 and 74/90-91, proposing classification under Chapter Heading 52.06 claiming full exemption under Notification Nos. 253/82,47/90 and 48/90.Show cause notice dated 30-1-1991 was issued proposing classification under Chapter Heading 59.01. Subsequently, classification list No.566/91-92 was filed and classification suggested was approved. In respect of other Classification Lists also show cause notices were issued. After hearing the respondent, the Assistant Collector confirmed the classification proposed under Chapter Heading 59.01. This order having been set aside by the Collector (Appeals), Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara has filed the present appeal. "5206.00 Cotton fabrics (excluding fabrics covered under heading Nos. 52.09, 52.10 and 52,11) - (b) subjected to the process...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Cements Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT208TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the above reference application seeking reference of the following question of law arising out of Tribunal's final order to the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court: "Whether the Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil (ANFO) used as explosives in mines for obtaining the lime stone, which is then used in the factory for the manufacture of cement, can be considered as 'inputs' eligible for Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944".2. Learned DR, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava states that an identical question had been considered in the case of Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. and aggrieved by the Tribunal's order in the case, the Revenue has gone up to Supreme Court after losing before the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court granted special leave to appeal and dispose of the appeal and also directed that since questions of law are involved, the Tribunal is to decide the reference. The Supreme Court has also directed to make a reference to the High Court. Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Refco Icematic Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC462Tri(Delhi)
1. Ld. Advocate Shri Sridharan in this matter has only pleaded that the demand of duty for Rs. 6,15,287.95 is barred by time inasmuch as the show cause notice was issued on 11-11-1988, whereas the period of demand is 1983-84 and 1984-85 (two financial years). Ld. Advocate has submitted that according to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Bata India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 9 the assessable value has to be arrived at after deducting the element of duty even in the case of fully exempted goods. In view of that position of law, as pronounced by the Supreme Court, Id. Advocate submit that the appellant could not be attributed any wilful suppression of facts etc. regarding the value of clearances effected under Notification No.67/83-C.E. reckoning the exemption limit. Ld. Advocate has fairly admitted that this position of law has, no doubt, been changed in the latter pronouncement of the Apex Court in Asstt Collector of Central Excise v. Bata India Ltd. repor...
Tag this Judgment!Aradhana Beverages and Food Company Ltd. Vs. Regional Director of Comp ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)130; AIR1999Delhi69; 1998(46)DRJ228
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. This is a petition under sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Aradhana Beverages & Foods Company Ltd. (for short the 'transferee company'), a company having a registered office in Delhi, has filed this application in order to seek sanction of this Court to the scheme of amalgamation of Sunrise Products (for short the 'transferor company.) with it. The authorised share capital of the transferee company is Rs. 30 crores divided into 30,00,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The subscribed & paid up capital of that transferee company as on date is Rs. 27.10 crores but as on the date of filing of the petition the same was Rs.8,10,00,000/- divided into 81,00,000/- equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The objects of the company are set out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association annexed to the petition. Mainly the objects are as under:-'i) To manufacture, process, produce, make, package, bottle, import, buy, sell, supply, stock, distribute, trade in and carr...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Surekha Bakshi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1998Delhi332
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. The question involved in this appeal turns around the interpretation of the provisions of Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act,1939 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Indian Motor Tariffs (Schedule of Premium) issued by the appellant.That the idea underlying clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act is to provide cover with respect to the passengers to be carried for hire or reward, and thereforee, the liability of the insurer is to be covered by this clause. Where the policy covers wider risks than those prescribed under Section 95 (2)(b) and that the insurer had undertaken to indemnify the insured for his liability with regard to the death of any person, the Court would be competent to make an award directing the insurer to pay such compensation to the claimant for which the insured is found liable. The question for consideration is whether in the facts of this case the liability of the insurer (appellant herein) was restricted to an extent m...
Tag this Judgment!