Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

B.D. Sanghvi Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT571TriDel

1. Question involved in this bunch of appeals is whether the benefit of Notification 104/82 as amended by Notification No. 146/82, dated 24-2-1982 and 74/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 would be available to the ball point pen brass tip which is a part of the ball point pen refill.The authorities below have denied the benefit of the said notifications on the ground that ball point pen tip is a part of ball point refill and not a part of ball point pen. The Notification No. 146/82 exempted namely, pens, ball point pens, part of such pens and refills for such ball point pens.2. Learned Advocate Shri J.S. Agarwal for the appellants urges that this issue is no longer res integra in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Nalanda Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v.C.C.E., Baroda 1998 (27) RLT 150 (CEGAT) wherein it has been held that part of a refill is also a part of ball point pen and therefore, the brass tip for refill will be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 104/82 a...

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD69(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt. 23rd December, 1997 of the CIT(A), Dehradun for asst. yr. 1994-95.1.1. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra Dun, has erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the appellant's claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 12,50,48,50,000 in respect of assets to which it was eligible under s. 32 of the IT Act, 1961.1.2. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra Dun, ought to have held that under s. 43(6)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, the written down value should have been computed by the AO after taking into account the aggregate of the written down value of all assets falling within a block of assets at the beginning of the previous year i.e., 1st April, 1993, and adjusting it by increasing the actual cost of the assets acquired during the year and reducing it by the moneys payable in respect of any assets which were sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed during the previous year.1.3. That the learned CIT(A), Dehra ...

C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT200; 1999(48)DRJ71

ORDERUsha Mehra, J.1. Petitioner, Dr. C. Bhaskara Rao was elected as Vice President of the Dental Council of India (hereinafter called the Council) in the meeting of the Council held on 15th May, 1996. He has assailed the arrangement of sharing by virtue of which Dr. R.K. Bali, respondent No.3 has been appointed as the President of the Council. His challenge is primarily based on two counts namely; (1) that two persons cannot share the tenure of the office of the President. The tenure of the post of President is for five years. It cannot be divided. (2) Secondly arrangement of sharing of the post of President or rotation of the tenure amongst two persons is against the Consist Act, 1948 (herein after called the Act) and the election regulations. Since the election of November, 1995 has been set aside and even other wise no one got absolute majority in that election held in November, 1995, hence no one could have been appointed to work as President. In the absence of a President it is a...

Union of India Vs. Madhya Pradesh Export Corporation Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ349

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The disputes between Union of India, Ministry of Railways, appellant in this appeal and respondent-Madhya Pradesh Export Corporation Ltd (for short 'the Corporation') were adjudicated by Shri V.K. Raizada, Sole Arbitrator in terms of his Award dated 31st August, 1994. The Award directed the appellant to pay to the Corporation a sum of Rs. 40,91,531/-. The claim of the Corporation for interest was, however, rejected by the Arbitrator in the following words:'As regards the claimant's prayer for the payment of interest on the balance amount due on account of the difference in rates at which payment was due and the rates at which the payment has actually been made, I am of the view that no interest is payable in this case as the contract did not provide for payment of any interest. Also, para 2401 of the Indian Railways Standards Conditions of Contract entitles the purchaser to withhold payment of any sum which the purchaser claims as his own and on such a sum no inte...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)872; 75(1998)DLT327; ILR1998Delhi637

Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. The exact date when Dengue fever was first detected or recognised in the world is still not known. Perhaps the first recorded description in the literature was an epidemic of new fever in Cairo and its suburbs in 1779 described by Aljabarti. During the same year an epidemic in Jakarta, Indonesia also occurred. 2. In September and October, 1996 national daily newspapers had published extensive reports about wide spread Dengue and a number of deaths which had taken place in Delhi and other parts of the country on that count. The newspaper reports also indicated that the Health Ministry of India was not at all equipped to tackle the wide spread disease. The weakest and lowest sections of the society were particularly worried. It was reported that the respondent Government is not taking adequate steps to prevent this epidemic at this stage. In these circumstances this Court took suo motu notice of this grave and serious problem in which people of Delhi were particul...

D.L.F. Industries Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR1999Delhi11; 75(1998)DLT338; 1998(47)DRJ253; ILR1998Delhi806; 1998RLR582

S.K.Mahajan, J.1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed for the grant of interim relief restraining respondent No. 2 from invoking the advance bank guarantee No. 316/96/568 for Rs. 2.60 crores and the performance bank guarantee No. 316/96/566 for Rs. 2.60 crores against the letter of intent No. KISKC/1412, dated August 17, 1996. On July 9, 1998, this court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, passed an ex parte order of injunction restraining respondent No. 1 not to make payment under the aforesaid bank guarantees to respondent No. 2. After notice had been issued to the respondents, it filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (IA No. 6720 of 1998), for vacating the ex parte order of injunction. Besides other pleas taken in the said application for vacating the ex parte order of injunction, one of the pleas taken was that this court has no terri...

M.T.N.L. Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Chaufla

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. The complainant Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Chaufla is a practising medical doctor. She was compelled to approach District Forum-II with two grievances firstly, that her telephone became dead on 16.7.1994. She lodged complaints from 16.7.1994 onwards every day but the telephone was setright only on 26.8.1994. She also wrote a letter in this connection on 22.8.1994. Her second grievance was that on 23.9.1994, she requested the opposite party, MTNL, to give her rental rebate from 16.7.1994 to 25.8.1994, the period during which the telephone remained dead. The opposite party did not accede to the request as indicated by the bill in which no rebate was given. The complainant again took up the matter and she was informed that the opposite party had granted rebate in rental from 21.7.1994 to 6.9.1994. She was at a loss to understand why rental rebate for the entire period from 16.7.1994 to 25.8.1994 had not been given. 2. The case was contested. On a consideration of the m...

Safir Ahmed and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor National Capital Territory of De ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 76(1998)DLT404

ORDERK .Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The 12 petitioners who were working in the Crescent Education School, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, had claimed the following reliefs: issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing the service agreements kept at Annexure A3 of this petition; to issue appropriate writ, direction, directing respondents 3 and 4 to afford the pay and allowances and other benefits to the petitioners at par with any other aided and recognised educational institutions. to issue any appropriate, writ, direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to have the school under respondent No.4 inspected and to taking appropriate action against Respondent No.3 under the law for violation of the Delhi School Education Act, in allowing discriminatory treatment to their employees; 2. The School is un-aided. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973, the petitioners are entitled to all the benefits enjoyed b...

Satish Mehra Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 5.1.1996 passed by District Forum-II by which complaint filed by the present appellant against the opposite party (now respondent) was dismissed. The complainant-appellant is aggrieved of that order. We will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the complaint. 2. According to the allegations in the complaint, the complainant and his wife, Mrs. Anita Mehra were the permanent residents of New York (USA) and had jointly opened Foreign Currency Non-Resident Fixed Deposit (for short FCNR) with the opposite party. The said Fixed Deposit was not transferable. On 13.1.1993 the opposite party issued fresh FCNR No. 0756223 for 3,298/- Pound Sterling for a period of one year maturing on 12.1.1994 in renewal of the earlier FCNR in the joint names of the complainant and his wife. It was kept in the custody of Shri S.K. Khosla, father-in-law of the complainant. Shri Khosia illegally got the said FCNR account closed on the ...

Brytex Auto Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT794TriDel

1. This is an Appeal against the finding of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeal) holding that the appellants were not entitled to 10% more than what has already been paid as duty by their New Rohtak Road unit. The Asst. Collector passed the Order-in-Original, which was appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Asst. Collector had held that in fact the demand notice amount was inclusive of the notional credit of Rs. 45,552.77 which the firm had availed along with Modvat credit while it was not allowed to be availed by the said firm against inter-transfer of goods/components from Anand Parbat unit to Naraina Unit.2. The facts, in brief, are that the Appellants have 2 units-one at Naraina Industrial Estate and the other at New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat. The Unit at Naraina is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of Motor Car, Scooters, Tractors and Trucks. The unit at New Rohtak Road (Anand Parbat) supplies components for use to the unit at Naraina Industrial Est...