Delhi Court April 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.
U.P. Jal Nigam and Another Vs. M/S BhasIn and Associates Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)334; 73(1998)DLT26
ORDERC.K. Mahajan, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 30, 1992 disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restraining the appellants from encashing the bank guarantee No. 24/90006/89 dt. 11.1.1989 and 24/90032/89 dt. 11.2.1989 on the basis of the letter of demand dated 11-7-1991.2. The appellants invited tenders for an I.D.A. Credit Project on 1st June, 1987 for construction and commissioning of raw water intake and water treatment plant of 100 m.l.d. capacity including supply, delivery, erection of all civil, mechanical and electrical equipments, machinery etc. The contract was awarded to the respondent No.1/plaintiff for the value of Rs. 574.416 lakhs. The work was to be completed within 45 months from the date of commencement of the contract. The value of the contract was revised to Rs. 542.416 lakhs. Formal contract was signed and in terms of the said contract, two bank guarantees were furnished by the plaintiff/resp...
Managing Committee of Army Public School Vs. Director of Education
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1998
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT549; 1998(45)DRJ664
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The second respondent was offered employment as Principal on the 29th of March, 1993 in the petitioner school and he was appointed, as such, on the 8th of April, 1993 fixing the probation period. On the 11th of April, 1994, the petitioner wrote to the Director of Education for extension of period of probation of the second respondent for a period of one year w.e.f. 16.4.1994. The Director of Education passed the following order on the 2nd of June, 1994:-'With reference to your letter No. 2/PF/SNO dated 11 Apr. 1994 on the subject cited above, I am directed to convey the approval of the Director of Education to extend the probation period of Mr.Scaria NO, Principal of your School by one year w.e.f. 15.4.1994.'2. Thus, the probation is to be extended by virtue of the order for a period of one year but the petitioner extended the probation period of the second respondent for a period of six months from 15.4.1994 to 15.10.1994. No order of further extension was passed...
Swank Leather Goods Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT576TriDel
1. It is brought to our notice by the ld. Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the above Applicant that the above appeal already stands disposed of by the Final Order Nos. 789 and 790/97-D, dated 20-8-1997.2. We have gone through the above mentioned order and find that the submissions are correct. Hence the Order of dismissal of the Appeal is set aside and no fresh orders are called for on the Appeal. In view of the fact that the Appeal already stands disposed of, the file may be treated as closed....
D.C.M. Sriram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT862TriDel
1. The appellants in this case manufactured chemicals for use in the sugar industry. Their final product Phenyl Acetic Acid, was cleared at nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 147/84-C.E.. One input, namely, Benzyl Cyanide, was manufactured by the appellants and was used for captive consumption free of duty under Notification No. 217/86. In the manufacture of Benzyl Cyanide, Benzyl Chloride was used, which was also manufactured by the assessees and cleared free of duty for captive consumption under the same notification. In their classification list dated 1-3-1989, for claiming benefit under the said notification for these two chemicals, it was stated that the final products were dutiable. The assessees were asked to specify the names of the dutiable products. On receipt of the reply to the effect that the final product was Phenyl Acetic Acid, the show cause notice was issued demanding duty on Benzyl Cyanide as well as Benzyl Chloride wrongly cleared under the notification f...
Kundan Lal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)871; 1998CriLJ3142; 1998(3)Crimes276; 73(1998)DLT256; 1998(46)DRJ4
Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 20.5.1997, by which the appellants were convicted under Section 304 (Part -I), IPC read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 2, Bhim Sain was further sentenced to R.I. for three years under Section 304 (Part I ) for causing the death of Lachman. The sentences of appellant No.2 were to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of this appeal before this court an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the learned counsel for the appellant Shri J.P. Gupta, in which it was mentioned that Kundan Lal expired on 10.3.1993. The application that supported with a death certificate issued by the Union Territory of Delhi. In view of this death certificate, the appeal against appellant No.1 Kundan Lal had already abated. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapi...
Diljeet Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3021
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The petitioner having been detained pursuant to order of detention dated 25-6-1997 issued by the Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short referred to as COFEPOSA Act) has challenged the same mainly on the ground that the report under Section 3(2) of COFEPOSA Act sent by the State Government to the Central Government was not considered by the Secretary (Revenue) in the Ministry of Finance and the continued detention of the petitioner, thereforee, is illegal.2. It is not in dispute that the detention order in this case was passed by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and, thereforee, under Section 3(2) of the COFEPOSA Act the State Government was required within 10 days of making the detention order to forward to the Central Government, a report in respect of the detention. The short question before us is whether thi...
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT130TriDel
1. In this case, the applicants are contesting the denial of Modvat credit of a sum of Rs. 1,66,998/-. Out of this amount, Modvat credit of Rs. 1,27,775/- has been denied on the ground that the items in question are not capital goods within the meaning ascribed thereto in the explanation to Rule 57Q and an amount of Rs. 39,223/-has been denied as this amount has been availed on the strength of original copies of invoices.2. The learned Counsel Shri M.P. Devnath submits that the applicants are manufacturers of Caustic Soda, flakes/lye solid, liquid Chlorine and Hydrochloric acid falling under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to the CETA1985. The items on which credit has been denied are SE Copper Wire, Transformer, Static Converter, Conduit PVC Arm Cable, Final Washing Assembly/HCL Tail Gas Assembly, Acralite Resins /Hylak Resins, Bakelite Sheet and M. Seal. He submits that all these are items falling within the definition of capital goods as they are used for producing or processing the fin...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. R.K. Plastics Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT478TriDel
1. The short point for determination in this Appeal is whether HDPE fabrics laminated with LDPE on both sides are classifiable under Chapter Heading 3926.90 as claimed by the Asses-see or Chapter Heading 3920.38 as claimed by the Department.2. The Assessees are manufacturing HDPE Fabrics laminated with LDPE on both sides. They claimed classification of this product under Chapter Heading 3926.90, claiming further that it was chargeable to NIL rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 53/86, dated 1-3-1986 in their Classification List No. 2/91-92 effective from 1-4-1991.3. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Assessee on the ground that the product in question was classifiable under Chapter Heading No.3920.38. The Assistant Collector held that the goods in question cannot be regarded as plastic sheets falling under Chapter Heading 3920.38.While coming to this view, he relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Wood Polymers 1990 (47) E.L.T. 595. Being aggrieved by this order, t...
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT573TriDel
1. The appellants herein are aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ah-medabad upholding the order of the Assistant Collector who has classified the product described by the appellants as Signboard Painters' Colour under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 3208.90, rejecting the assessee's claim for classification of this producct under CET Sub-heading 3213.00.2. The appellants have asked for decision on merits and hence we have heard Shri A.K. Madan, learned DR and perused the records. The plea of the assessees is that the signboard Painters' Colour packed in small size containers can be used only by Signboard painters and therefore, the product in dispute merits classification under Sub-heading 3213.00.We however, find that for an earlier period, in the case of the same assessees, the Tribunal has already expressed its views that the ready mixed paints irrespective of the size of the packing, fall for classification under CET sub-heading 3208.90. This decisi...
Technicast Engineers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-13-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT559TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed w.r.t. the order of Commissioner (A), Ghaziabad, dated 12-8-1997.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the basic issue involved in this case is as to whether the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit in respect of refractory bricks and refractory goods which were used in the manufacture of continuous cast iron bars for lining the furnace in which waste and scrap of iron is melted before the molten material is cast into bars.3. Initially, after the issue of the show cause notice the proceedings were dropped by the A.C. but an appeal against the said order filed by the department was accepted by the ld. Commissioner (A); Hence this petition. It was his submission that the question whether the refractory bricks/goods were entitled to Modvat has been settled through several decisions which have been listed in the grounds of appeal including the Calcutta High Court judgment 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594 (Calcutta) and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal 1996 (82) E.L.T. 57...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »