Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments

J.K. Saxena Vs. Shri Madan Lal Khurana

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)765; 75(1998)DLT903; 1998(47)DRJ214; 1998RLR640

ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition is directed against the judgment dated April 22, 1992 passed by Shri S.N.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.2. The petitioner sought an eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room, one toilet and one verandah in property bearing No. B-54, C.C.Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.175/- since 1973. The petitioner is owner of the premises in dispute let out for residential purposes and requires the same for use as a residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him and he has no other suitable residential accommodation and has since retired as Principal from Delhi Administration in October, 1988. It was further stated that petitioner is a qualified Homoeopath and after retirement has started giving ...

Sgt. J.C. Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ387

K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are airmen in the Indian Air Force. Earlier a few of the airmen had challenged the action of the respondents in declining to grant extension of their services. The matter was fully argued by Mr. Narender Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in CW.3117/98 and I had dealt with the same. The same points are taken in this batch of writ petitions. thereforee, it is not necessary to cover the whole ground again. The ratio in that judgment would apply to the facts of these cases. thereforee, all these writ petition stands dismissed.2. The writ petition No.4591/98 came up for admission, wherein the same points have been taken. This is also dismissed.3. Mr. Narender Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, produced, while arguing the matter for admission in CWP 4591/98, the letter dated the 30th of May,1998 issued by the Government of India, which reads as under:-'Sub: Ages of retirement of Air Force Officers ...

Bagri Foundation Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1999]235ITR99(Delhi)

1. Rule D.B.2. The petitioner filed this petition seeking a mandamus to the respondents to issue refund vouchers for the amount of tax which was liable to be refunded to the petitioner and for which there was no dispute. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay interest which is statutorily liable to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. During the pendency of this petition and after notice of the petition being served on the respondents, the requisite refund voucher has been issued and the main grievance, thereforee, stands satisfied.3. However, the petitioner has pressed for the costs of the petition being allowed to the petitioner inasmuch as the respondents failed to carry out their statutory obligation and the petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing this petition.4. We cannot resist observing that in various cases it comes to the notice of the court that writ jurisdiction of this court is required to be invoked solely because of the cal...

S.B. Mathur Vs. R.S. Ajit Singh and Co.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts leading to this miscellaneous application are that after hearing Counsel for the parties orders were reserved in Appeal No. A-l64/84. After the retirement of the lady Member of appeal was set-down for re-hearing and notice was directed to be issued. Only Counsel for the appellant appeared on 6.2.1997. None appeared for the respondents. Proceeding on the supposition that notice regarding rehearing had been served, on Counsel for the respondent, the case was adjourned for final arguments to 9.4.1997. Mr. Santosh Paul, Advocate for the appellant agreed to inform the Counsel for the respondents about the next date of hearing. None appeared for the respondents on three subsequent dates to which the hearing was adjourned. Ultimately, Counsel for the appellant was heard on 13.10.1997 and the appeal disposed of by our order of the same date. On receiving certified copy of the order passed in appeal the present application has been moved by Premier Autom...

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT117TriDel

1. By the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed the captioned appeal.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 10-2-1994, the Officers of Customs (Preventive) intercepted six parcels lying in the office of M/s. State Cargo Services, Delhi. These parcels were stated to have been delivered to one Shri Om Prakash by Shri Mukesh Khandelwal. These parcels were examined and found to contain 247 pcs.of floppy disc drive bearing marking of 'Sony Made in Malaysia'. The goods were valued at Rs. 4,94,000/-. As neither Shri Rakesh Kumar nor Shri Om Prakash could produce any documentary evidence to show the legal importation of the floppy disc drive, these goods were therefore seized. The statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar and Shri Mukesh Khandelwal among other persons were recorded. Shri Rakesh Kumar in his statement denied any knowledge of the contents of the packages...

Collector of Customs Vs. Telco

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC128Tri(Delhi)

1. Question involved in the present appeal is whether oil consumption measuring instrument imported by the respondents herein are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 189/92-Cus. (aux.). There is no dispute on classification of the said goods under Tariff Heading 90.31 which pertains, inter alia to measuring instrument. Benefit of Notification has been claimed by the respondents herein because they feel it is covered by Sl. No. 45 of the table to the Notification pertaining to "Electrical measuring, checking, analysing or automatically controlling instruments and apparatus". The said expression has been defined by explanation (6) of Notification as follows :- (6) "Electrical measuring, checking, analysing or automatically controlling -instrument and apparatus" means:- (a) instruments or apparatus for measuring or checking electrical quantities: (b) Machines, applliances, instruments or apparatus of a kind described in Heading Nos. 90.14, 90.15, 90.16, 90.17, 90.25, 90.26, 90.27...

H.C.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT765TriDel

1. The question involved in the present appeal is whether a machine described as 'Canofile 510', a desktop electronic filing system falls under Tariff Heading 84.71 or under Tariff Heading 84.72.2. Appellants herein contended that it falls under Tariff Heading 84.71, whereas the Additional Commissioner of Customs has held on classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.72.3. We have heard both sides. We observe from the impugned order that Shri Anoop Khandelwal, Manager (Imports) had admitted before the adjudicating authority that while he had no objection to the classification being changed to Tariff Heading 84.72, the goods could not be confiscated for the purpose of EXIM Policy, inasmuch as the Custom House had been taking a view earlier that these machines were falling under 84.71. He had, therefore prayed for a lenient view to be taken. "I have gone through the case arid submissions made at the time of personal hearing. It is observed that Heading No. 84.71 includes only such digital mac...

Dinodia Textile Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT140TriDel

1. Matter called. None for the appellant. Notice of hearing was sent to the appellant, but there is no response from them. Accordingly, we have heard the Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Agarwal for the Revenue. We have also gone through the Memorandum of Appeal and the grounds of appeal.2. The appellants herein are manufacturing wadded cotton fabrics. The process of manufacture of said goods, described by the Revenue was quilted fabric or wadded fabric, is that the fabric is stitched with wading of cotton, thereafter it is being sold by the appellants to the manufacturers of coir for coir articles as well as garment manufacturers for making of quilted garments. From reading of description under Tariff Heading 56.01, it is observed that such goods are covered by the said description namely "wadding of Textile materials and articles thereof; textile fabrics not exceeding 5 m.m. in length (flock), textile dust and mill neps". Lower Appellate Authority found the said goods matching with description und...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Chirag Import and Export

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT814TriDel

1. The subject stay application has been filed by the Revenue praying for staying the operation of the impugned order passed by the Lower Appellate Authority holding that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise at this stage inasmuch as the goods are still with the respondents. It appears from the Order-in-Original that after clearance of Synthetic Waste, the respondents herein filed refund claims of Rs. 1,69,704/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2160, dated 24-5-1995 and for Rs. 1,09,918/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 2358, dated 6-6-1995 on account of higher countervaling duty charged on the said goods. The refund claim was filed on the ground that the rate of countervaling duty has been decreased vis-a-vis earlier ad valorem rate w.e.f.18-5-1995 and hence the basis for claiming the refund. The original authority had found the refunds admissible but denied the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment on the finding that the goods could be sold later on by the respondent...

Durable Electricals (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT243TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Durable Electricals (Pvt.) Ltd., the issue for our consideration is whether pumps generally used for desert coolers are eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No.142/88-C.E., dated 18-4-1988. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi had after referring to the I.S.I. specification and the H.S.N. Explanatory Notes, held that pumps manufactured by the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of the said Notification No. 142/88-C.E.2. We have heard Shri N.L. Jahangir, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S. Nunthuk, JDR is present for the Respondent-Revenue.3. Shri N.L. Jahangir, learned Advocate, submitted that pumps manufactured by the appellants were in the nature of centrifugal pump and were covered by the description of submersible pump. He referred to the exemption notification and submitted that parts of electrical motor used in the manufacture of submersible pumpsets were eligible for exemption. It was his submission that ...