Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Spectrum Technologies Usa Inc. Vs. Spectrum Power Generation Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)237; 74(1998)DLT574; 1998(46)DRJ441

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. The crux of the dispute in this matter depends on an answer to the question: 'whether the IDBI is the necessary or proper party and whether its presence would help and enable this court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in this suit?' 2.1 The plaintiff filed a suit seeking 'a mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.2 and 3 to make necessary amendments in the Articles of Association in accordance with the requirement of promoters agreement dated 29th June 1993', 'a declaration that the resolution at item No. 9 passed by the Board of Directors of defendant No.1 in its 27th meeting held on 14th November 1995 is illegal and ultra virus the promoter agreement dated 29th June 1993 and parties were still bound by the promoters dated 29th June, 1993' and further seeking 'a declaration that Dr. A.V. Mohan Rao and Mr. Brij Bhartelly are and continue to be members of the Board of Directors of defendant No.1 on behalf o...

Ntpc Vs. Spectrum Power Generation Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)328; 74(1998)DLT500

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. In this suit, the NTPC seeks a decree for specific performance against defendants No. 1 to 3 to perform their obligations in the promoters agreement, seeks mandatory injunction to defendant No.1 to issue and deliver 77.7 lakhs equity shares to plaintiff by accepting the plaintiff's contribution for the same and to accept the plaintiff's nominee as the Directors on their Board. IDBI was not made a party to this suit earlier. Certain stand has been taken by defendant No.1 in written statement relating to promoters agreement which is said to have been deviated due to the terms and conditions imposed by IDBI as pre-condition for disbursement of the loan and financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 306 crores approximately on certain terms and conditions including that there would be a public issue of the equity shares to the defendant to the extent of 34%. The plaintiff tried to procure the appraisal report and other relevant correspondence between them and defendant No....

Bhagwan Dass Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)492; 75(1998)DLT613; 1998(47)DRJ795

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy,J.1. The petitioner is working with the first respondent. He applied for loan under the Indian Airlines Housing Loan Regulation. On the 25th of March, 1996, a charge-sheet was issued on the ground that the petitioner had violated the terms of the loan granted to him, and thereforee, he is guilty of misconduct.2. The petitioner has challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceed-ings on the main ground that the charges leveled against him do not come within the purview of the misconduct and, thereforee, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the charge-sheet. The first respondent has filed the counter-affidavit and stated that it is within the power of the Indian Airlines to take action against the employee if he or she commits breach of the terms of the loan sanctioned under the provisions of the Indian Airlines Staff Housing Loan Regulations.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Jain, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'A.L.Ka...

Naurang Singh (Ex- Constable ) Vs. the Director General

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)7; 74(1998)DLT377; 1998(46)DRJ482

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal dated 01.04.1992 which was confirmed in appeal by order dated 24.12.1992 and the order by the Revisional Authority dated 22.09.1993.2. The case of the petitioner could be stated tersely in the following terms. Since July 1985 the petitioner was serving in Central Reserve Police Force. After completing requisite training, the petitioner reported for service in 78 Bt. He worked there till 1989. In May/June 1989 he was transferred to E Company 38 Bt.3. On 25.03.1991, E Company 38 Bt was in Agra in connection with the visit of a VIP. The petitioner had done his duty. Afterwards for a short-while he went outside the camp to purchase soap in a nearby shop. The sentry on the gate had allowed him to go outside and the sentry - if it may be noticed here has stated in his evidence that he did not stop anybody from going outside because there was no order to that effect. thereforee, it is clear that there was no impedime...

B.L. Patni Vs. D.D.A.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. B.L. Patni, who was working in a Senior Position in the Bank of India at the relevant time, purchased plot No. A3/133, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi in Public Auction from DDA for Rs. 3,36,627.50. Possession of the plot was not delivered to the said auction purchaser as the plot had not been demarcated. Ultimately the plot was demarcated and possession delivered on 1.11.1989 after nearly 23 months of the date of auction. The complainant filed complaint registered as C-15/90 which was decided by this Commission by order dated 24.1.1991. The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs. 65.000/- with interest @ 15% from the date of complaint till payment. DDA failed to comply with the order and the complainant was obliged to take out execution. The amount awarded by the Commission was paid in those proceedings. 2. The complainant thereafter approached DDA for execution of the Lease Deed which was not done despite of continuous f...

U.P. Instruments Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC413

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of water meters, was supplying major part of the goods to Government Departments and small part to wholesale dealers, passing on trade discount to such wholesale dealers.Appellant was following invoice price procedure in terms of Notification 120/75 and was paying duty on the actual invoice price, namely, the price less trade discount. In respect of clearance for the year 1984-85 it was found that the appellant had taken deposits from the dealers without liability to pay interest. Show cause notice was issued referring to the above facts and alleging that trade discount granted to buyers was taken back in the shape of interest on deposits and therefore trade discount was not admissible for deduction and proposing demand of duty on that basis. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand and this order is now challenged.2. The department had no case that the trade discount was not pass...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Products (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT461TriDel

The respondents herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of 'Melody Chocolate Toffee and Baby Kismi Toffee'. They claimed classification of the two products under Chapter Heading/sub-heading 1803.00 chargeable to duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem. The Asstt. Collector, however, called upon the respondents to show cause as to why the said two products be not classified under Tariff sub-heading 1804.00 attracting 12% rate of duty. The Asstt. Collector upheld the proposal in the show cause notice.1.2 In the appeal before the lower appellate authority the respondents herein succeeded. Hence this appeal by the revenue.2.1 In order to appreciate the reasoning of the lower appellate authority we give below the findings of the said authority :- "It is seen that the appellant have accepted the Order-in-Appeal No. PPM-1273/B.I.-684/86, dated 27-3-1987 and no appeal has been filed against the same with CEGAT. The T.I. No. 1A (4) reads as "chocolates, in the form of blocks, slabs, tablet...

National Refractories Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT726TriDel

2. The appellants herein manufactured refractory bricks and utilised the same within their own factory premises for repairing Kiln installed within the factory premises without payment of duty, availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986. The duty amount involved is Rs. 2,066/-. Lower appellate authority has not agreed to the appellant's contention herein for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. on the ground that it provided for the exemption of goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory. Further the intention of the notification is to provide an exemption to goods not normally manufactured by the manufacturers in its factory, but only to such other goods which are required for maintenance of machinery installed in the factory. In the present case bricks are the primary product manufactured by the appellants and therefore the benefit of Notification 281/86 cannot be allowed. The appellants had relied on Tribuna...

V.D. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT951TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 12/DD1/97, dated 11-8-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi confiscating the goods imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and covered by Bill of Entry dated 16-12-1996, but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000.00, determining the value of the imported goods as Rs. 5,93,386.43 as against the declared value of Rs. 2,36,189.87 and imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000.00 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Appellant imported 50,000 sets of calculator parts of China origin supplied by a trader in Hong Kong. Invoice dated 4-12-1996 presented by the appellant referred to the component parts as Card, Key Pad + Rubber, LCD, Button Cell, Screw, Metal Connector and Stickers. The prices of these different components were shown in Hong Kong $ as 0.55, 0.10, 0....

Arkay Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT846TriDel

1. Appeal E/4766/92-A relates to approval of price list and the other two appeals relate to consequential demand of differential duty for two periods, namely, August, 1990 to January, 1991 and February, 1991 to July, 1991.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cinni Brand electric fans in the factory situated in a backward area in U.P. State. The appellant also enjoyed the benefit of sales tax exemption in respect of sales within the State of U.P. The sales were through depots in and outside U.P. State. Appellant declared higher wholesale price for sales to dealers in U.P. State and lower price for sales to dealers outside U.P.State. Assistant Collector passed an order on the price list and another order on the demands holding that duty was payable for goods sold to dealers outside U.P. State on the higher price charged to dealers in U.P. State. These orders having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in a common order, the present appeals have been filed.3. We dealt with ...