Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments

Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Gulf Air

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, complainant, is a qualified Engineer and he was sponsored by Al Dilly Tour and Travels Agency (UAE), Al Fujairah. He obtained a visitors visa and purchased a return ticket dated 7.9.1993 from the Gulf Air, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party. The complainant arrived at Al Fujairah (UAE) on 9.11.1993. It was discovered that the ticket issued by the opposite party at New Delhi had no coupon for the return flight from Al Fujairah to Muscat on way to New Delhi. He handed over his passport and return ticket to the Agency which had sponsored him to get the needful done. In January, 1994 the Sponsoring Agency produced the aforesaid ticket at the opposite partys office at Al Fujairah. The opposite party, however, failed to return the ticket alongwith the necessary coupon from Al Fujairah to Muscat. The visitors visa expired on 16.2.1994. The complainant was unable to undertake the return journey in...

Stag Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT299TriDel

1. In both these cases, the Commissioner of Central Excise have after initial determination of capacity under Sub-section (2) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have determined the capacities and liability of the applicants herein on the basis of certain data as verified by their officers. It is against the subsequent orders that the applicants herein have filed the appeals contending that the adjudicating authority has re-determined the liability without giving any opportunity for hearing, without giving any verification report or any material on the basis of which re-determination has been done by the Commissioner and without giving any opportunity to the applicants to produce their evidence in support of actual production. The learned Advocate for the applicants, Shri R. Santhanam has, therefore, urged that the impugned orders have been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in both these cases, the appellants have been pursui...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Klk Electricals Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT490TriDel

1. Matters called. None has appeared for the respondents. Being Revenue's appeals, we have heard the learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal in support of Revenue's appeals.2. Question involved in the present appeals is the classification of bus ducts. The original authority namely, Assistant Collector classified the product under Tariff Heading 85.37. On application by the Revenue under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the lower appellate authority did not accept the applications of the Revenue. The said authority confirmed the aforesaid classification under Tariff Heading 85.37. Hence, these appeals by the Revenue.2. The learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal has submitted that bus ducts is in the form of a big rectangular box containing metal bars in it. These metal bars (Bus bars) act as 'conductors' and carry electrical current.These bus bars are kept in an insulated box like arrangement and the entire arrangement is called as a bus duct. These bus ducts are supplied with accessories l...

Modi Xerox Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)67ITD252(Delhi)

1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of CIT, Meerut, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and relate to the asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. The solitary issue neatly identified by O. P. Vaish, is in relation to the re-examination of issue apropos the denial of deduction contemplated under s. 80-I of the Act on the ground that the item manufactured by the assessee-company comes within the ken of the Eleventh Schedule of the Act, by resorting to the provisions of s. 263 of the Act. "The assessee-company was granted licence for the manufacturing of "Xerographic equipment and systems" coming under the head "High technology reproduction and multiplication equipment". It was engaged in the manufacturing of xerographic machinery, toner, developer and photoreceptor. It was also engaged in the servicing activities. On examining the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT found that conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction ...

Veena Mahajan Vs. Shri V.N.Verma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)11; 73(1998)DLT488; 1998(46)DRJ120; (1998)119PLR26

ORDERK.Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated the 14th of February, 1996 with reference to plot No.40 situated at Village Khureji Khas measuring 360 sq.yds.2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff could be related as under:-3. The defendant is the owner of the residential plot measuring 360 sq. yards. The defendant inherited the right from his mother the late smt.Sushila Verma, who was a member of the Bhatnagar's Cooperative House Building Society Limited. She died on the 25th of April, 1980 and the defendant, being the sole legal heir, had become entitled to it. The defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the plot for Rs.1,50,000/-. The terms and conditions are as under:-'1. That the entire consideration amount of the said plot of land is fixed between the parties at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.One lakh and fifty thousand only) out of which the first part has received the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rup...

Jayshree Oza Vs. Rakesh Mohan and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)770; 74(1998)DLT11; 1998(46)DRJ582

J.B. Goel, J.1. The plaintiff seeks an injunction in this suit. It is alleged that she is the owner of the premises on the second floor of property No. B-107, defense Colony, New Delhi which she purchased from defendant No. 3 by means of an agreement to sell dated 31.10.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs which was paid by her at the time of the agreement, she has occupied the premises and is using the same for her residence; that at the time of the agreement defendant No. 3 had represented and assured her that the property was free from all kinds of encumbrances and that the construction had been raised after obtaining sanction according to law; that on 23.3.1998 servant quarter on the roof top has been was sealed in pursuance of an order of sealing on the ground of certain deviations in construction against sanctioned plan. It is alleged that this order of sealing is illegal and void as no notice before sealing or other show cause notice has been served upon her; she being in po...

Piyush Gupta Vs. University of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)840; 73(1998)DLT671

ORDERCyriac Joseph, J.1. The petitioner is a student for the Degree of Bachelor of Business Studies (B.B.S.) in the College of Business Studies, Jhilmil Colony, Vivek Vihar, Delhi. The Bachelor of Business Studies is a three year course consisting of six semesters with examinations at the end of each semester. The petitioner was admitted to the course in July 1995. He appeared in the examination conducted at the end of the first semester in November-December 1995 and Passed in 4 out of 5 papers. He failed in Paper No. 3-Micro Economics & its Applications. However, he was promoted to the second semester became a student who passed in 4 out of 5 papers was eligible for promotion as per the rules. The petitioner appeared in the examination at the end of the second semester in April-May 1996. When the results were declared the petitioner was shown as failed since he did not secure a minimum of 50% marks in both the semesters together as required under the Bachelor of Business Studies (B.B....

Ram Bahadur Thakur (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bry Air (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 73(1998)DLT466; 1998(45)DRJ638

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The claimant before the arbitrator had prayed for a decree in terms of the award passed by the arbitrator. The first respondent M/s.Bry Air (India) Pvt. Ltd. is the objector, who has challenged in IA.893/94. the award passed by the arbitrator.2. The arbitrator passed the award on the 6th of January, 1995 in the following terms:-'1. Copy of the order of May 17, 1984 of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vijender Jain, Judge of the Delhi High Court in suit No.2816/89, was forwarded to me by the Registrar of the High Court vide his communication No.8578/1 dated 30.05.1994, appointing me as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute as enumerated in the petition, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 2. On receipt of the aforesaid order, reference was entered into by sending summons to the claimant and respondents on 09.06.1994 by Speed Post, for appearance at 10.30 A.M on 17.06.1994. The parties represented by advocates and persons appeared on the dat...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Hydraulic Hose (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT168TriDel

1. This is a revenue appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 20-2-1995 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Chen-nai. In para 4 of his order, the Collector (Appeals) has held as follows : "I have carefully gone through the records of the case including the submissions made in the grounds of appeal as well as during hearing. I find that in order to classify the product under Chapter Heading 8307.00, the Assistant Collector had relied upon note (1) to Chapter 83 according to which parts of base metal are to be classified with their parent articles. Further, according to interpretative Rule 3(a) the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. On the above ground, the classification was confirmed under Chapter 83. I find that even according to Chapter Note (1) of Chapter 83, the Assistant Collector has chosen to rely upon only part of the note. Note (1) to Chapter 83 when read completely, is as follows :- "For th...

P.C. Rathi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT815TriDel

1. The order impugned in the appeals giving rise to the stay applications is under challenge in Appeal No. E/48/98-A, being the main appeal filed by the assessee. In that appeal we waived the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty confirmed and penalty imposed.Applicants before us are Directors of the assessee. In the circumstances, following the earlier order, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the amounts of penalty imposed on the applicants herein.The applications are allowed....