Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Ajit Kumar Vs. Surinder Kumar and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 74(1998)DLT522; 1998(46)DRJ535

C.M, Nayar, J. 1. The present petitions are directed against the Order dated 24th August, 1995 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi as well as the Appellate Order dated 26th July, 1996 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The Rent Controller refused to pass orders under the provisions of Section 15(1) as well as 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Judge held that there was a question of disputed rights on the basis of the Wills which cannot be decided at that stage as it is not clear as to who has the right to recover the rent and who is the landlord of the premises in question and unless that point is settled by a competent court no order can be passed under the provisions of Section 15(4) of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal upheld the Order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that till the trial court adjudicated upon the rights of the parties no order can be passed under the provisi...

Ex. Sq. Leader Anil Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ652

K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The writ petitioner was removed from service by order dated the 8th of July, 1994. The order reads as under:- '1. WHEREAS, a Show Cause Notice No. Air HQ/21641/16068/P01(F) dated 12 Feb 93 was served on Sqn.Ldr.A.Gupta (16068) F(P) requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service under Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 17 Air Force Rules, 1969 for avoiding flying duties and showing lack of confidence in flying. 2. AND WHEREAS, the said Sqn Ldr A Gupta (16068) F(P), submitted a reply to the said Show Cause Notice bearing reference No. 325/16068/PF/12 dated 16 Apr 93 urging therein his reasons against the proposed action. . 3. AND WHEREAS, his reply to the said Show Cause Notice has not been found satisfactory. 4. NOW thereforeE, the Central Govt after considering the reply of Sqn Ldr A Gupta (16068) F(P) to the said Show Cause Notice and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, in exercise of the powers confer...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Micro Turners

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT420TriDel

1. Short question in this appeal of the Revenue is whether on the defective motor vehicle parts received by the respondents herein after payment of duty by the consignee and returned to the respondents for removing the defects Modvat credit can be taken or not. Original authority denied the Modvat credit on the ground that this does not amount to process of manufacture and hence no Modvat credit can be taken. On appeal before the lower appellate authority the respondents herein succeeded.2. Learned JDR, Shri T.A. Arunachalam for the appellant submits that the process undertaken by the respondents does not amount to manufacture and therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit of duty paid, even though by the original consignee of the goods cannot be allowed inasmuch as it is essential for taking the Modvat credit that some manufacturing must take place from inputs to get another commodity.3. Opposing the contention, learned Advocate, Shri J.P. Kaushik submits that in the present case the Mo...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Star Paper Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT637TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved herein is whether the benefit of Modvat credit on welding electrodes used in manufacture of the capital goods inside the factory is permissible under Rule 57D(2) or not. The respondents herein had made a declaration for the said goods under Rule 57G declaring the aforesaid purpose of the inputs.2. A show cause notice was, however, issued on 3-4-1996 that the Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A was not permissible inasmuch as it is not used in relation to paper but it is used in fabrication of recausticising plant.3.1 On adjudication, the original authority denied the Modvat holding as follows :- "(2) Credit taken on welding electrode :- As submitted by the assessee in their written reply of show cause notice welding electrodes has been used for electric welding in fabrication of recausticising plant. As per case of M/s. Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector -1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C). The recaustisising plant is not goods as the same ...

S.P. Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT176TriDel

1. This is an application for early hearing of a customs appeal filed in October, 1997. Customs appeals filed in 1995 are being included in the hearing list presently. The car imported has been cleared, though at the enhanced value. There are two submissions made on behalf of the appellant, they are that the appellant is old and sick and the car cannot be sold for three years from the date of import and the excess duty paid by the appellant is blocked up with the Department. We questioned the appellant who is present who complained of back pain and defective eye sight. He also stated that several members of his family died before the age of 65. The appellant is now 62 years old. We do not think this provides a ground for early hearing. The vehicle has already been cleared.2. In the above circumstances, we do not think any ground has been made out for early hearing at this stage. It is open to the appellant to renew the request after six months. The application is dismissed....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Phosphorus Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT564TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification 43/88 is available to a product which is pesticide intermediate or not.2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR submitted that Notification No. 43/88, dated 1-3-1988 exempts products falling under Chapter 28 or 29 of the Schedule to the CETA if they are used in the manufacture of goods falling under sub-heading 3808.10 of the Tariff, the respondents are manufacturing phosphorous trichlorides which is used captively in the manufacture of trimethyl phosphite falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff. As trimethyl phosphite is not falling under sub-heading 3808.10, the benefit of Notification is not available to the respondents as the conditions of the Notification have not been satisfied.3. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate, submitted that trimethyl phosphite manufactured by them is being cleared following Chapter X procedure for manufacture of insecticides/pesticides falling under s...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Madras Industrial Products Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT999TriDel

1. This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Shri S. Nunthuk.Respondents were not present although they had filed memorandum of cross-objections.2. The assessees manufactured gaskets. The various classification lists filed by them from time to time were approved. On 5-4-1988 the Assistant Collector, on a visit to the assessee's premises, felt that classification of two varieties of gaskets was wrongly made under Chapter 6805.10. Therefore, vide a show cause notice dated 8-4-1988, he proposed to reclassify the same under Chapter 8484 and also proposed to charge differential duty on such reclassifi-cation for the period 1-10-1987 to 31-3-1988. The description of the contested products as per show cause notice was as under :- "(i) Spiral wound gasket: This is a gasket where asbestos is used as an agent checking leakage of fluids. It is a circle shaped gasket where the inner and outer of the gasket are made up of metal (either of iron or steel). In between the inner and outer metal rings...

S.K. Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders of the CIT(A). For the sake of convenience all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The only common ground raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the assessment on protective basis in the hands of the assessee-HUF as against the assessee's claim that assessment ought to have been completed on substantive basis in the hands of the HUF.3. The facts, in brief, are that for the asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessee filed returns in the status of HUF declaring incomes of Rs. 12,220 and Rs. 12,250 respectively. In response to notice issued under s. 143(2) by the AO it was stated on behalf of the assessee that the HUF of S. K. Gupta came into existence as a result of gift of Rs. 5,000 made by Suraj Bhan, father of S. K. Gupta in 1979 on the occasion of 'Karanchedan' ceremony of Master Deepak, Sarika and Rajni, all children of S. K. Gupta. The gift was...

Sanjay Gupta Vs. M/S. Jakki Mull and Sons

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)292; 75(1998)DLT50; 1998(47)DRJ185

A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC making a prayer that defendant No.3, namely, M/s. Liberty Sales Services be restrained from handing over the peaceful and vacant possession or removing its stock, furniture, ornamental and decorative items from the shop bearing No.E-27/1, Connaught Place, New Delhi. This application has been moved in Civil Suit No.1268/98 which was instituted during vacations and was taken up by the Vacation Judge, Hon'ble Justice K.Ramamoorthy on 26th June. 1998.2. This I.A was taken up for consideration and notice was issued for 9.7.1998. Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate appeared for defendants No.1 and 2 and the following order was passed by Hon'ble the Vacation Judge on 26th June, 1998:-'Mr.Maninder Singh brought to my notice the order passed by the Division Bench in the matter between his clients and his alleged licensee.According to the learned counsel the Division Bench had directed the handing over po...

Sudesh Kumar Kathuria and anr. Vs. Lyca Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT403; 1998(46)DRJ855

S.N. Kapoor, J. 1. Heard.Learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon two judgments of the High Court. In Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh & Sons (Contractors) Pvt. Ltd. v.Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd., : AIR1979Delhi220 , no dispute was mentioned in the petition. Disputes mentioned in the notice which was sent, was sought to be relied upon. In that context, this Court held that the petition was not maintainable.2. A similar question arose in Sh. Villayati Ram Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1981 Del 313. In that case also, disputes were not mentioned in the petition. An Annexure to the petition was sought to be referred to point out the disputes. This Court again held that since the disputes were not mentioned in the petition, the petition under Section 20 was not maintainable.3. But is it the case here? Certainly not. For, para 5 of the petition (Suit No. 170/ 95), as per copy shown by the learned Counsel for the appellant reads as under:5. That in view of the defaults committed by the ...