Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Vaish Brothers and Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi105; 75(1998)DLT474; 1998(47)DRJ489
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. After the disputes had arisen between the parties under Agreement No.CEDZ/19 of 80-81 relating to the provision of married accommodation for 55 officers at Delhi Cantt, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri P.Anatharam, Chief Engineer. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties and examining and considering the material before him made and published his award on 16th August, 1986. The award was filed in court and after notice of filing of the award was served upon the parties the respondent - Union of India filed its objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award. The objections can be summarised under the following heads:1. That after the signing and acceptance of the final bill by the contractor and the payment having been made to the contractor in full satisfaction of its claim there did not arise any dispute between the parties which could be referred to the arbitrator and consequently the award was without jurisdicti...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)905; 1998(2)ARBLR472(Delhi); 75(1998)DLT456; 1999(48)DRJ288
ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. By judgment dated July 27,1990 passed in Suit No.2346/97 & I.A.1675/88 and Suit No.287-A/88 this Court had set aside the award dated 12th October,1987 passed by the Arbitrator in so far as the same related to additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of claim no.2 as well as claim no.6 and remitted the same to the Arbitrator for reconsideration and to make an award in respect thereof with reasons within four months. This portion of the award was set aside on the ground that no reasons whatsoever had been given by the Arbitrator on the said claims. The Arbitrator has now given reasons in respect of additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of claim no.2 and claim no.6. After the said reasons were filed in court, the respondent has once again filed objections to the Award which have been registered as I.A.No.9601 of 1991. There was some delay in filing the objections and the court, thereforee, framed the following issues:1. Does the application u...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rani Devi Vs. Ashok Kumar Nagi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi109; 76(1998)DLT279
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. Late Lal Karam Chand Nagi was the owner of the properties being Shop Nos. 290 to 296, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Near New Amar Talkies, Delhi. The said property comprised of not only the shops on the ground floor but also comprised of the first, second and third floors. After the death of Lala Karam Chand Nagi, the plaintiff who is the daughter of the deceased Karam Chand Nagi, filed this suit for partition of the property against defendant No. 1 who is her brother and defendant No. 2 who is the other daughter of the deceased Karam Chand Nagi. It was alleged in the plaint that the deceased died intestate and as such parties to the suit being the legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to 1/3rd share each in the said property. While the shops on the ground floor are under the tenancy of the different persons named in the plaint, in a portion of the first floor, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was running a primary school. The remaining portion of the first floor as well ...
Tag this Judgment!National Rubber Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT763TriDel
1. These four appeals involve common issue regarding classification of edge-cutting of transmission and conveyor beltings. The appellants were clearing these edge-cuttings at nil rate of duty by classifying them under CET sub-heading 4008.29 as strips of non-cellular rubber whereas the Department wants to classify them under sub-heading 4004.00 as waste, parings and scrap of rubber.2. Ms. Ginni Bedi, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the issue is squarely covered by this Bench Order pronounced on 4-9-1998 in Appeals No. E/2306-2307/93-C, E/2305, 2308/93-C, E/823-824/93-C, E/822 and E/1281/93-C in which the appellants were also a party. We heard Shri H.K. Jain learned SDR.3. The issue regarding classification of edge-cutting was considered by this Bench in the appeal Nos. referred to above in which the appellant was also one of the party. In that order pronounced on 4-9-1998, we had observed that the appellants had raised the issue of excisability...
Tag this Judgment!Diesel Locomotive Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT85TriDel
1. The appellant M/s. Diesel Locomotive Works, a unit of Indian Railways, having filed an appeal against Order No.168-CE/Appl./Alld./93/3428, dated 4-1-1994 confirming the Order-in-Origi-nal No. 21-MP/93-94, dated 29-7-1993 passed by Collector, Central Excise, Varanasi in confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,44,04,8207- has filed the present application seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We have heard both sides.2. The appellant has been manufacturing I.C. Engines and captively consuming the entire production in the manufacture of Diesel Locomotives, of which the bulk are cleared to Indian Railway authorities and a small quantity amounting to 2% are either exported or sold to Public Sector Units or to private parties in India. The impugned orders relate to the clearances of I.C. Engines effected during the period 1986-91. Appellant had filed provisional price list undertaking to file final price list subsequently and to pay d...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Glaxo India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT710TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of P or P medicines falling under Chapter Heading 30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed Modvat credit on inputs/raw materials used in the manufacture of their final products as per the procedure laid down in Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. During the period 1-4-1986 to 30-6-1989 (period covered in E/Appeal No. 1758/93-C) and 1-7-1989 to 30-3-1990 (period covered in E/Appeal No. 768/94-C), they received glass bottles falling under Heading 70 and claimed Modvat credit on the same. On comparison of the quantity of receipt of glass bottles with the quantity of finished goods packed in such bottles and the stock in balance, it was noticed that the assessee had not utilised the entire quantity of glass bottles in the manufacture of finished goods and that a certain quantity of glass bottles had been disposed of from the assessees factory as 'glass scrap wastage'.2. The department was, therefore, of the...
Tag this Judgment!Kooverji De Vs. Hi and Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT27TriDel
1. In this case, duty demand of Rs. 52,889.45 P. has been confirmed on charges/refills for various types of Fire Extinguishers manufactured by the appellants herein, holding that the charges/refills are not entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 111/88, dated 1-3-1988. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits, hence we have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR and perused the records.2. The Notification grants exemption inter alia only to Fire Extinguishers. The fact that Chapter heading 8424.00 includes Fire Extinguishers whether or not charged, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that exemption is available even for refills for Fire Extinguishers. Such refills are classifiable under Chapter Heading 38.13 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 and are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification in view of the language thereon. We therefore, see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Collector (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the impugned order and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dcm Shri Ram Consolidated Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)(81)LC497Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 19/92 dated 31.3.1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi confirming the demand of Rs. 6,74,385.91 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Rules 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Blended Cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics, was availing the benefit of Notification No. 254/87 which provided for exemption from additional duty based on the value of the fabrics per square meter. There was exemption in force regarding payment of excise duty. Appellant was filing price lists from time to time and paying duty on the basis of approved prices on the clearances made during the period January 1988 to December 1988. Sales were being effected by the appellant on linear meter basis. Table to the notification referred to various items and headings. The fabrics of the appellant fell under...
Tag this Judgment!Devender Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)105; 1998(47)DRJ297
M.S.A Siddiqui, J.1. In this suit under Order XXXIII Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff has, inter alia, claimed the following reliefs:(i) Pass a decree of declaration in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants more particularly against the Delhi Development Authority i.e., Defendant No. 1 to the effect that the act on the part of the Delhi Development Authority i.e. Defendant No. 1 to demolish the construction as raised by the Plaintiff over the suit property is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 30 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and as such the act of the Defendant No. 1 is unconstitutional, ultra vires, against Rule of Law and is liable to be set aside and interfered by the Hon'ble Court and as such, be declared ultra vires, unconstitutional and non-existent in the eye of law. (ii) pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants more particularly the Defendant No. 1 to restore the property (construction) as it was before demolitio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramji Lal Yadav Vs. Dalip K. Yadav
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1(1999)CLT121; 76(1998)DLT526
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed on an application of the petitioner/respondent (father) under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short).2. Brief relevant facts, are as under :3. Sh.Dalip Kumar Yadav, the petitioner/respondent, was married to Smt. Shashi Bala on 26.4.86. Out of this wedlock a male child Jatin Yadav was born on25.3.87 in Delhi. Smt.Shashi Bala along with her son went to her parents' house in Nainital. On 29.5.87 Smt. Shashi Bala died in suspicious circumstances. The child remained in the custody of his maternal grandfather.4. According to the case of the petitioner/respondent, his repeated requests to his father-in-law to return the child were turned down and the custody of the minor child has not been handed over. Feeling aggrieved he filed the aforesaid application.5. It is further the case of the appellant that Master Jatin was hardly two months old at the time of deat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »