Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 4 of about 237 results (0.040 seconds)National Research Development Corporation Vs. Titanium Tantalum Produc ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT365; 1998(47)DRJ475
M.K. Sharma, J. 1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC praying for setting aside the order dated 17th October, 1996 passed by this court whereby this court struck out the defense of the defendant and the suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte as against the defendant.2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from committing infringement of patents No.134375 dated 24th January, 1972 and 138571 dated 4th December, 1972. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and on completion of the pleadings dates of trial were fixed from l0th to 12th May, 1995 and the defendant was permitted to file its list of witnesses. The counsel for the defendant, however, did not comply with the aforesaid order and submitted before the court on 26th May, 1995 that he might be discharged from the case as he had not received any instructions from his clien...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1999]237ITR542(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a common reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referable to assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 made at the instance of the Revenue seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting and disallowing of Rs. 1,05,604 on account of entertainment expenses incurred outside India ?' 2. After hearing learned senior standing counsel we are of the opinion that the question suffers from an inadvertent/typing error. It does not bring out the real controversy and also it does not fit in the factual matrix of the case. The question is, thereforee, recast as under : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax-(Appeals) reducing the deletion of entertainment expend...
Tag this Judgment!Sgt. Indera Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ374
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner joined IAF as an airman as Mechanical Transport Driver on the 24th of August, 1977. He was promoted to the rank of Corporal in 1982. In 1992, he was granted 6 years extension of service. On the 2nd of August, 1995, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sergeant. On the 24th of October, 1996, the petitioner applied for extension of service for the second time. In February, 1997, the petitioner again applied for extension of service w.e.f. September, 1998. In May, 1997, the petitioner's request for extension of service was rejected. In September, 1997, the petitioner again reminded that he has requested for extension of time because he has cleared the JWO Exams, which was the reason for rejection of extension of service in May, 1997, and thereforee, his case for extension of service can be considered. On the 7th of October, 1997, the petitioner received intimation that he is to be discharged from service w.e.f. 31.8.1998. In May, 1998, according ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Four a Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 75(1998)DLT430; 1998(47)DRJ508; (1998)120PLR67
M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,99,618.08 Along with interest accrued thereon from 1.9.1977 by sale of mortgaged properties and in the event of there being any shortfall after sale of the aforesaid mortgaged properties for a joint and several decree against the defendants for recovery of the aforesaid amount.2. The suit was originally instituted by Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited. The said bank was however, subsequently amalgamated with the Canara bank and all suits, appeals and proceedings pending at the time of the notification amalgamating the said bank with the plaintiff bank were authorised to be prosecuted and enforced by the plaintiff bank and accordingly, the Canara Bank is substituted as the present plaintiff.3. The defendant No.1 was incorporated as a Private Limited Company with defendants No.2 to 9 as its Directors. The defendant No.1 was wound up by orders of this court in C.P...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rupali Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1038TriDel
1. The issue which arises for consideration in the above appeal filed by the Revenue is whether "Rigid Polyurethane Foam" obtained by insitu process by interaction of mixtures of Polyols and Isocyanates within the cavity between the inner and outer vessels of the plastic articles is excisable commodity falling for classification under CET sub-heading 3926.10 or it is not a marketable commodity and hence is not excisable commodity.3. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the Respondents. We heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. We have perused the Tribunal's order in the case of Milton Plastics Ltd. Final Order No. 655/90-C, dated 27-6-1990 and the Tribunal's Order No.684/89-C, dated 21-11-1989 (subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissal of the Revenue appeals as seen in 1995 (80) E.L.T. A212 and find that the view has been taken that the item in dispute is not marketable and hence is not excisable. Following the ratio of the above order we upheld the im...
Tag this Judgment!Mahindra Engg. and Chem. Products Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT150TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Mohindra Engg. & Chemical Products Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal dated 16-12-1993 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The dispute relates to the classification of 'Oscillating Disc Rheometer' imported by the appellants. The appellants claimed that the item was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 9027.80 read with Notification Nos. 105/89 and 158/89 read with Notification 46/88. The Department on the other hand classified the item under Chapter Heading 9024.80 which attracted a higher rate of duty. The appellants' claim for refund to the tune of Rs. 4,86,297/- on account of the difference in the rates of duty was rejected by the authorities below. Hence the present Appeal.2. The Asstt. Collector denied their claim for classification under Heading 90.27 holding that curing is a change in the physical properties of material by vulcanisation and the function of Rheometer was the measuring of torque which is proportional to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Organic Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT172TriDel
1. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant has a factory at Manali for the manufacture of Man-made Fibre.2. The Appellant imported a consignment of six Head Assemblies for Gas Chromatograph Model 5840A installed in the factory. On the arrival of the consignment by air, Bill of Entry No. AD 293, dated 7-2-1989 was filed in the Madras Airport Customs. The consignment was assessed by adopting classification under Heading/sub-heading 8473.30 and duty was duly paid on that basis and the consignment cleared.3. An application dated 30-9-1989 for refund of excess duty was filed.It was explained that in Appellant's factory there was one Hewlett Packard Gas Chromatograph Model 5840A. The Thermal Print Head 5081-3017, which is a part of the said Chromatograph, became defective and hence had to be replaced. The replacement came by air to Madras Airport on 15-2-1989. The article was classified under Heading 8473.30.The above classification is incorrect. There is no dispute regarding the fact that th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. U. Foam (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT232TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturing inter alia back-rest, arm-rest, head-rest and seat cushions made up of polyurethane (PU) foam. In the first instance the classification of the aforesaid product had been made under Tariff Heading 94.01 which reads as follows :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heading No. Sub-heading Description of Goods Rate of No. Duty-------------------------------------------------------------------------------94.01 9401.00 Seats (other than those of 20% Heading No. 94.02), whether or Revenue however felt in view of Chapter Note 3(b) of Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff that the aforesaid articles should be classified under Tariff Heading 94.04.2.1 We may at this stage reproduce the Tariff Heading 94.04 and the said Chapter Note 3.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Head- Sub-hea- Description of Goods Rate ofing No. ding No. Duty---------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. M/S East Coast Boat Builders and Engine ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)222; AIR1999Delhi44
ORDERA.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application on behalf of petitioner No. 2 (Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited) in OMP No. 162/98 for review of this Court's order dated August 25, 1998. Before this application for review could be heard and decided, the applicant moved an application for amendment of the review application which was allowed by his Court vide order dated April 30, 1999. The amended review petition as it stands now makes the following prayers :-(a) Review and recall the order dated 25.8.1998 and hold that the Petition is entertainable under Section 34(2)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (b) Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.' 2. Shri A.S. Chandhiok submitted arguments for the applicant and Shri Shiv Dayal, Senior Advocate submitted arguments for the respondent.3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash Pahwa and ors. Vs. State of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)285; 3(1998)CLT609; 75(1998)DLT3; 1998(46)DRJ719
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. This common order shall govern the disposal of CWP Nos.3000/98, 2979/98, 3019/98, 3020/98 AND 3125/98 laying challenge to a public notification dated 15.6.1998 issued by the Govt of NCT Delhi under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 approving a scheme earlier proposed by a public notification dated 22.9.1997 under Section 99 of the Act. There are two sets of petitioners. CWP Nos.3000/98, 2979/98, 3019/98, have been filed by several private bus operators presently plying buses under Stage Carriage Permits.CWP No.3019 and 3020/ 98 by Ex-servicemen Bus Operators.2. On 22.9.1997 the Govt of NCT of Delhi issued a public notice under Section 99 of the Act. The text of the notification is reproduced in exten-so inasmuch as the contents thereof are the core of controversy and would be required to be referred to throughout to appreciate the contending contentions advanced at the Bar. It reads as under :-GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI STATE T...
Tag this Judgment!