Delhi Court September 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 19 of about 234 results (0.041 seconds)Ajay Rajpal Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIIAD(Delhi)265; 1998(47)DRJ5; ILR1998Delhi737
N.G. Nandi, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu-tion of India read with Section 482 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'the Code'), the petitioner has been seeking quashing of a complaint dated 23.12.1997 filed under Sections 135(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter `the Act') against him and for the consequential relief of the return of the goods of the petitioner seized as per seizure memo dated 24.10.1997 and the release of a sum of Rs. 2 lacs cash seized from the house of the petitioner vide seizure memo dated 24.10.1997.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, shortly stated, are that the petitioner has been running his business of audio cassettes/CDs distribution of reputed companies for the last about 19 years in Chandni Chowk, Delhi in the name of Music Mahal; that the petitioner never indulged in any illegal business or smuggled goods; that on 23.10.19...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar (Major) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998VIAD(Delhi)328; 76(1998)DLT413; 1998(47)DRJ339
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders dated May 27, 1996 and June 6, 1996 whereby the respondents have levied damage rent on the petitioner for retaining the defense pool accommodation for the period, December 16, 1995 to May 14, 1996.2. The petitioner who was serving at New Delhi was transferred and posted at Srinagar in June, 1996. He reported for his duties at Srinagar on June 15, 1995. On June 16, 1995 he applied for separated family accommodation for his family which he had left behind in Delhi. On December 15, 1995 the petitioner applied for six months' extension for retaining the defense pool accommodation in Delhi. In January, 1996 the petitioner was allotted hired accommodation at NOIDA (UP). The petitioner, however, did not shift from the defense pool accommodation to the allotted accommodation at NOIDA till May 15, 1996. Consequently, he was asked to pay damage rent for the period December 16, 1995 to May 15, 1996 amounting to Rs.42,126/-. P...
Tag this Judgment!Aaa Film Motion Picture Producers and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi178; ILR1998Delhi763
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. These two petitions raise common questions. thereforee, both the writ petitions are being disposed of together. The first petitioner, AAA Film Motion Picture Producers, is a sole proprietary firm of the second petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Khan. The petitioners are engaged in the business of production and direction of motion pictures and T.V. Serialls. The Deputy Controller of Programmes, Directorate General Doordarshan, by means of communication dated May 13, 1996 informed the petitioners that their proposed sponsored programme titled 'JAI HANUMAN' had been slotted for telecast on the Metro Channel on Sundays from 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M. w.e.f. June 2, 1996 for a total of thirty-nine episodes. The letter also set out the terms and conditions under which the Seriall was approved for telecast. It was further, inter alia, provided that no extension would be considered beyond the stipulated number of episodes. It appears that the petitioners requested for extension wo...
Tag this Judgment!Technofab Engg. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 76(1998)DLT425; 1998(47)DRJ239
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J. 1. Work of installation of fire fighting equipment at the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited installation at Bijwasan was awarded to the petitioner. The contract period was eight months and the scheduled completion was 16.9.1985. The work, however, could be completed by the petitioner only beyond the scheduled period and after extension was granted for completion of the same. The value of the contract was Rs.26,89,202.90 and the respondent deducted a sum of Rs.1,34,460/- from the amount due and payable to the petitioner by way of penalty in terms of Clause 4 of the agreement and Clause 25 of the General Condition of Tender.2. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid deduction made from the final bill of the petitioner in pursuance of which, the parties appointed their arbitrators and the retired Chief Engineer of C.P.W.D. was appointed as an Umpire. The two arbitrators received claims and counter claims filed by the parties and also the docum...
Tag this Judgment!Kochhar Construction Works Vs. D.D.A. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ219
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this petition under Sections 4, 8 & 20 of the Arbitration Act the petitioner has prayed for an order directing the respondents to file the original arbitration agreement and for appointment of an independent arbitrator to decide the disputes arising between the parties since the respondent No.1 has failed to appoint an arbitrator.The petitioner initially filed proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in this court which were registered as Suit No.1502/1992. In the said proceedings the respondent herein filed a counter affidavit and contested the proceedings on various grounds including the ground of non-maintainability of the petition because the petitioner was an un-registered firm and also on the ground of limitation contending that the proceeding is barred by limitation. The Single Judge of this court by judgment/order dated 4.11.1993 allowed the suit and issued a direction to the respondent to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with the arb...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Aggarwal and anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1999Delhi67; 1998(47)DRJ553
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of learned single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellate has been dismissed in liming on the ground that equally efficacious remedy of appeal is available to them. It has been held by learned single Judge that the writ petition is not tenable in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Kishore v. M.C.D., : AIR1992SC2279 . Briefly the case of the appellants is as under :The appellants are the sons of late Mr. Basheshar Nath who had let out the ground floor of property No. 61, Jor Bagh, New Delhi to Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the year 1969 at the monthly rent of Rs. 750/-. He had also let out the first and second floors in the year 1969 at a monthly rental of Rs. 675/- to M/s. Chowgule and Company Limited. The property tax for the years 1969-70 to 1988-89 had been assessed on the actual rental yield. The challenge in the writ petition was to the notices of assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Construction Company Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(47)DRJ316
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for defendant-bank's eviction from the basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the building bearing No. B-26-27, Community Centre, Janak Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit premises) and also for recovery of mesne profits @ Rs. 12/- per sq. ft. per month w.e.f. 1st February, 1990.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case is that on 1st March, 1981, the suit premises were let out to the defendant-bank at a rent of Rs. 23,580/- per month. By the notice dated 10th January, 1990, the plaintiff terminated the defendant-bank's tenancy w.e.f. 31st January, 1990. Despite service of the said notice, the defendant-bank did not vacate the suit premises. Hence, this suit.3. This suit has been resisted by the defendant-bank on various grounds. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed :-1. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? 2. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause o...
Tag this Judgment!Lathia Rubber Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT278TriDel
1. The main issue for determination in the present appeal which arises out of the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is the correct classification of a product Hypalon-40 imported by the appellants herein - according to the Department, the product is classifiable under sub-heading 39.01 of the CTA, while according to the importers, the correct classification is sub-heading 40.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is pointed out at the outset by the learned Counsel, Shri Shah, that the issue of classification of this product is no longer res Integra as the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of National Insulated Cables reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 568, classified this product under Heading 40.02 and this judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Universal Cables and Anr. reported in 1996 (16) RLT 340. He, therefore, submits that the only issue which remains to be considered by the Tribunal is the grant of consequentia...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdoot Paints Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT138TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s Rajdoot Paints Ltd., the matter relates to the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Sodium In Poly Phosphate (STPP) used in the manufacture of detergent powder during the period when the Modvat credit had been taken by the appellants without filing any specific declaration with regard to the said input - STPP. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder, among other products, and during the period in question - April, 1989 to June, 1989, the detergent powder was wholly exported to Russia. The appellants took Modvat credit of the duty paid on STPP and used the same in the manufacture of detergent powder. The appellants filed the declaration with regard to the input - STPP, under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), on 12-6-1989. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, who re-adjudicated the matter (after the matter was remanded back to him by the Collector of Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Leather Indus. Devp. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT273TriDel
1.2 The appellants herein is Karnataka Leather Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (KLIDCL). Apart from manufacturing footwear they are also imparting training to the local population in manufacture of footwear. Their unit with which we are concerned has been functioning since 1984. On the basis of a Circular No. SSI(I)30(102)/79, dated 25-10-1979 from the Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial Development) to all the State Leather Corporations through the Under Secretary to that Department, the appellant was of the view and held a belief that all State Leather Corporations were to be treated at par with all State Industrial Corporations registered either with DGS & D or National Small Scale Industries Corporation (NSIC) under the Single Point Registration Scheme and will be eligible to all the concessions and facilities which are admissible to all such units.1.3 On 29-9-1986 the unit as usual has sent 435 pairs of footwears in hand driven cart accompanied by a person....
Tag this Judgment!