Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)83; 74(1998)DLT647; 1998(46)DRJ588; 1998RLR430
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. This I.A. No. 8385/93 has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for grant of interim relief of damages/mesne profits or in the alternative maintenance, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- P.M. in a suit for partition and injunction. Plaintiffs are the widow and son of deceased Ravi Suri who died on August 29, 1989. Defendants 1 and 2 are his mother and father, whereas defendants 3 and 4 are his brothers. Defendant No.2 having died during the pendency of the suit, besides the parties on record his daughter Smt. Renu Khanna has been imp leaded as his legal representative.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that deceased Ravi Suri was doing his separate business and he owned the following movable and immovable properties as his separate properties:-Immovable properties: 1. Residential House No.HD-32, Vishakha Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi. 2. Factory building No.10, Dilkhush Bagh, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. 3. Double Store...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VAD(Delhi)486; 74(1998)DLT493
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. In the suit for possession and mesne profits, the plaintiff has filed the application (I.A. 2435/96) under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') for passing a decree of possession on admission. 2. The plaintiff's case is that she is the owner of property No.E-525, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi; had let out the same to the defendant under a lease deed dated 18.1.1982 at a monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-. The lease was duly registered and was for a period of three years and renewable for a period of two years with enhanced rent of 10%, which was so renewed for two years and the rent was raised Rs.7,150/-; that lease being for a fixed period, expired by efflux of time after five years; the defendant did not vacate the premises; after the amendment in the Delhi Rent Control Act in 1988, the premises are out of the purview of that Act as the rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month. The plaintiff also gave notice dated 20.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ19
Manmohan Sarin, J.1.Appellant has preferred this first appeal against the order dated 21.1.1994, passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The application was moved in Suit No.323 of 1993, seeking decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent No.1-MCD from granting any license for trading of petro Chemicals like acrylic wool, kashmilon wool, silk yarns and other inflammable yarns in the tenanted premises to respondent No.2. Further a decree of permanent injunction was sought against respondent No.2, restraining it from trading in the above petro Chemicals products in the tenanted premises. 2. Before dealing with the contentions and grounds raised by the appellant, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts culminating in the filing of the present appeal: (i) The appellant/plaintiff in February, 1993 filed a Suit No.220 of 1993 for permanent injunction against respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT199TriDel
1. Heard the learned SDR in the absence of the respondents (sic) who have requested for decision on merits.2. Issues involved and findings of the lower appellate authority thereon are given below: "I have considered the facts of the case together with records of personal hearing. Though the Respondents are claiming Box stands of different types as correctly classifiable under H.No. 9608.00 as pen holder, it is found that they are not merely pen holders - being more optly designed to be considered as pen stands - but actually designed not only to hold the pen but also for keeping pins, U-clips and exhibiting day and date calender etc. Even in Col. Nos. 2 of C. Lists they indicate as 'Executive Desk stand', 'Calender Stand' etc. In commercial parlance also the items are known by these names and not as "Pen holders". As such these products in question would like out-side the perview of Heading No. 9608.00. The Heading No. 83.04 of GET A, 1985 deals with the miscellaneous articles of box ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(110)ELT831TriDel
1. The impugned order held that the appellant M/s Demech Erectors Pvt.Ltd. could not avail themselves of the benefit of small scale exemption as they were using the brand name of another.2. The appellants have submitted that the finding is without any factual basis. The show cause notice had alleged that the appellant's product was being cleared under the brand name 'Pride' and that brand name belonged to M/s Racold Appliances, Pune. On this question of fact, the adjudication order had come to the conclusion that Racold Appliances are not manufacturing washing machine with the brand name 'Pride'. The appellants submit that the brand name 'Pride' belonged to M/s Pride Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Pune. The brand name belonged to the appellant after they purchased M/s Pride Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and that it was not a brand name of Racold. They also submit that the washing machines were affixed with the plate which said "Serviced by Racold".The plate also said "Manufactured by Pride Electrical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC204
1. Appellant is represented by Shri K.S. Manga, Assistant Executive Engineer. We have heard both sides.2. Appellant is the Assistant Executive Engineer incharge of the workshop belonging to Punjab State Electricity Board, where PCC poles are manufactured. The dispute arose in the wake of price list No.46/90-91 with effect from 1-4-1990. The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise refers to the declared value as Rs. 386.20 per pole. The price list was filed in form No. VI as the poles were intended for captive consumption by the appellant and the same was approved provisionally. The Assistant Collector finally approved the price list directing duty to be paid on the assessable value at Rs. 524.25 per pole. That was the price approved finally for PPC poles manufactured at the Mohali Workshop of the Electricity Board. Show cause notice was issued proposing demand of differential duty in respect of 25416 poles of differential value of Rs. 94.03 per pole.Appellant resiste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC200
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri K.Srivastava, SDR and perused the papers. Shri K.V. Swaminathan, Consultant assisted us.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of fruit drinks, was filing price lists from time to time and on approval thereof clearing the goods on payment of appropriate duty. The dispute in this appeal relates to the period from January 1989 to March 1989.3. On scrutiny of the invoices it was noticed that appellant was charging separately for straw supplied along with each container but had not included the cost of the straw in the declared assessable value of which approval had been sought and obtained. Accordingly show cause notice dated 8-8-1991 was issued referring to the result of investigation and alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT175TriDel
1. The above two reference applications involve the same question namely "Whether private challans other than prescribed documents are valid for taking Modvat credit under Central Excise Rules, 1944". They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri D.K. Nayyar, Id. JDR submits that an identical issue has been referred to the jurisdictional High Court and, therefore, prays that the above reference applications may be allowed and the facts of the case referred to the High Court for decision as the Tribunal has already held that a point of law arises.3. Opposing the request for reference, Shri R.S. Saini, Id. Consultant for the respondents submits that the respondents had taken credit following the clarification given by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore. He submits that all the Benches of this Tribunal were taking the similar view and there was no conflict in the view of the Tribunal on the issue and therefore no case was made out to refer to the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT20TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether concessional rate of duty is applicable to the raw naphtha brought in by the respondents for use in the manufacture of ammonia.2. Heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR and Shri Lachhman Dev, learned Consultant.3. The Commissioner of Central Excise has come up in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that Notification No. 158/89 dated 17-7-1989 which amended the Notification No. 27/89 dated 1-3-1989 including ammonia in the list of the products to which the Notification applies is only prospective in nature and not applicable retrospectively. We find that Notification No. 27/89 provides concessional rate of duty if raw naphtha is used in the manufacture of synthesis gas (Sl.No. 20). We also find that Notification 40/85, dated 17-3-1985 also provides the exemption to synthesis gas if used in the manufacture of ammonia. Accordingly, taking into consideration both the Notifications 27/89 and 40/85, the impugned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the above- mentioned application are that K.N. Joshi (now deceased) was operated upon by the opposite party No. 1 on 9.1.1992. K.N. Joshi filed the present complaint on 10.6.1992 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and claiming compensation. Proceedings in the complaint were stayed by the High Court from 9.9.1992 to 16.1.1996 in Writ Petition No. 3147/92. During the pendency of the W.P., K.N. Joshi died on 28.12.1994. The present application was made on 28.3.1995 by the L.Rs. of the deceased with a prayer for being brought on record and continue the complaint. 2. The opposite parties have contested the prayer. We have heard Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Advocate for the proposed L.Rs. and Mr. Izaz Maqbool, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. Raj Kishore Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2, and Mr. K.D. Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and have gone through the written notes of subm...
Tag this Judgment!