Delhi Court April 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 8 of about 161 results (0.028 seconds)Sukhcharan Singh Vs. Sh. Harbans Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)509; 73(1998)DLT283
ORDERLokeshwar Prasad, J.1. This order shall govern the disposal of an application, filed on behalf of defendant No.1 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC'), praying for the dismissal of the suit, filed by the plaintiff, on the ground that the same stands abated due to the default on the part of the plaintiff in not bringing on record the LRs of deceased defendant No.14, namely, Mrs. Gurbachan Kaur within the prescribed time limit. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that one Shri Jit Singh was a member of the East Punjab Railway Refugee Rehabilitation and House Building Co-operative Society Limited. He was allotted a piece of land on account of his being member of the above mentioned Society. The plaintiff Shri Sukhcharan Singh has filed the present suit claiming himself as one of the successors of said Shri Jit Singh. The plaintiff, in the present suit has prayed for the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pradeep Metals Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT273TriDel
The respondents herein were granted a Central Excise Licence on 29-7-1987 for manufacturing iron and steel forgings. Declaration under Rule 57G for availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of steel castings and forgings were also filed by them and got acknowledged on 5-8-1987. In their letter dated 5-8-1987 submitted along with the declaration, they had claimed Modvat credit in respect of inputs in stock and in process as on 29-7-1987 under the provisions of Rule 57H. Though, the details of such inputs were not furnished, it was also stated in the said letter that since they were not under excise control, they had not insisted on GPls from the consignors and purchased the inputs from the open market. In the circumstances, they requested that they may be granted the benefit under the said Rule 57H.2. The respondents in August, 1987 itself submitted a statement of inputs and finished stock containing inputs as on 29-7-1987. This statement was submitted to...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cosmos Engineers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT213TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the goods other than of polystyrene classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff to the benefit of Notification No. 53/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the reference application filed by the Department under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise approving the classification lists of the respondents, M/s Cosmos Engineers, claiming exemption on the various goods in terms of that Notification No. 53/88-C.E. The appellate authority had observed that where more than one notification is available to an assessee, it was open to him to avail of either of them and the fact that Serial No. 39 of the Table annexed to that notification was applicable to the assessee did not debar him from availing of the benefit against Serial No. 40 of the said table.2. The matter was posted for he...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Containers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT47TriDel
1. The short question involved before us is whether waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of metal containers by using black plates, tin plates etc. is to be assessed under Tariff Heading 7203.10 as "waste and scrap of iron" or it is to be assessed under Heading 7203.20 as "waste and scrap of steel". Revenue has classified the product i.e. waste and scrap arising as aforesaid under Tariff sub-heading 7203.20 while the claim of the appellant herein is Tariff sub-heading 7203.10.2. Ms. Reena Khair, ld. Counsel, has submitted that the burden to prove the classification under CETA, 1985 falls on the Revenue. She further submits that before both the lower authorities the appellants have been requesting the Department to test their product to find out whether they are of iron or whether they are of steel. But the Department has not acceded to their request and decided the classification without finding out the basic fact whether the waste product is of iron or of steel by met...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Refair Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT43TriDel
1. Matters called. None for the respondents but they have stated that the case may be decided on merits since they are unable to appear being small scale manufacturers. Accordingly we have heard the ld. JDR Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR, for the Revenue.2 Question involved in the present matters is regarding the classification of bolts, screws, shaft, nuts, etc. for electrical control panels manufactured by the respondents herein on specific drawings and designs supplied by the customers. The question here is whether they have to be classified as parts of electrical machinery under Chapter 85 as contended by the respondents or whether it be classified under Tariff Heading 7318.00 as contended by the Revenue.The lower appellate authority in the impugned order has held regarding the aforesaid products that their exact functions should be ascertained, in case these are only used as fasteners without any other specialised application, they would qualify for classification under Chapter sub-heading...
Tag this Judgment!Rals (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC261Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M.Ali, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant imported a consignment of 50,000 pieces of condensor mike (Microphone Cartridge) and submitted invoice dated 18-1-1990 showing the price as HK $ 90 per 1000 pieces and Bill of Entry dated 22-1-1997 showing the country of origin as Hong Kong and total price as Rs. 9885.00. The Custom House required the appellant to produce certificate relating to the country of origin. The appellant produced certificate issued by the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Hong Kong which showed the goods to be of Japanese origin. There was contemporaneous import of similar items of Japanese origin manufactured by Matsushita with brand name "National". Those goods were delivered by M/s. Philips Japan Ltd. to M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. at Japanese Yen 19.30 per piece. The Collector of Customs, therefore, rejected the trans...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Claytone Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)67ITD118(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue arising out of the order of the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi dated 27-2-1990. The following ground has been taken :- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi has erred in accepting the plea of the assessee that the trading in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies is not a speculative transaction and as such the loss of Rs. 2,10,650 arising from these transactions as liable to be set off against business income. The Ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the deeming provisions of explanation to section 73 of the I.T. Act, 1961." 2. The Ld. D.R. has pointed out that the assessee purchased shares of three companies namely M/s. Oswal Agro Mills, M/s. H. M. M. Ltd. and M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. on 6-12-1987, 10-12-1987 and 19-12-1987 and the same have been sold on 11-12-1987, 19-12-1987 and 19-12-1987 respectively without making any payment for receiving or selling the shares. There has been no transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd. Vs. M/S. Raj Medicos and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998RLR353
ORDERVijender Jain, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright and passing off seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining infringement of copyright as well as passing off. The relief is valued at Rs.200/- for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and court fee of the amount of Rs.20/- has been affixed. However, for the relief of rendition of account of profits, it is valued at Rs.200/-. It will be interesting to reproduce paragraph 23 (c) of plaint which is as follows :(c) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants, it is valued at Rs.200/- for purposes of Court fee and the requisite amount of Court fee has been affixed. This relief is valued at Rs.5,50,000/- for the purposes of jurisdiction, as the plaintiff estimates that such an amount shall be found due to the plaintiff on accounts being rendered. The plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fee as may be found due when the a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Bhagwan Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 73(1998)DLT172; 1998(45)DRJ626
ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. State of Haryana being aggrieved with the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) has challenged the same primarily on the grounds that the Tribunal did not appreciate that it was the deceased Nand Kishore the cyclist who was at fault. That there was no negligence of the driver of the Haryana Roadways bus bearing No.HYA-1630. Moreover, the Tribunal erroneously applied the multiplier of 15 years. Tribunal wrongly assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs.3,600/- per month. In fact the dependency loss works out to be much less.2. In order to appreciate the challenge, the relevant facts of the case are that Nand Kishore (deceased) was going on his cycle at Mall Road. He was on the left side (correct side) of the road. Hardly had he reached near CRP Quarters when Haryana Roadways bus coming from opposite direction driven rashly and negligently in a fast speed hit a motor-cycle driven by one K.L.Pasricha (of FAO.No.222/83). Motor-cycle was going ahe...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Bandha Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IVAD(Delhi)683; 74(1998)DLT486; 1998(46)DRJ458
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was an Additional Principal and disciplinary action was taken against him. On 18.04.1984 a charge-sheet was issued which was followed by Memo dated 13.06.1984 and a notice was also issued on 04.07.1984 which was challenged in the writ petition.2. Before going into the controversy in the writ petition, it is necessary to notice a few facts. On 11.06.1983 the Governing Body was properly constituted is not in dispute. The Governing Body consisted of 20 members. With reference to 8 members there is no controversy and their functioning as members of the Governing Body at the relevant time. The 12 members by the Delhi Administration.3. On 06.06.1984, the Executive Council of the Delhi University passed a Resolution for the purpose of the administration of the college which was the subject matter of the resolution and the resolution reads as under:MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL'S MEETING HELD ON 6.6.1984 100. Under any other business with the p...
Tag this Judgment!