Delhi Court March 1999 Judgments

J.T. Mobiles Ltd Vs. Deutsche Bank Limited and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)573; AIR1999Delhi358; 78(1999)DLT837; 1999(49)DRJ611

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This Order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application bearing I.A. No. 5489 of 1989 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in Suit No. 1334 of 1998.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. This Court while issuing summons to the defendants also granted an ad interim ex parte injunction on 6.7.1998. The injunction order was in respect of encashment of financial bank guarantee pertaining to Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka Circles. As far as Andhra Pradesh circle in concerned, the ex-parte injunction granted by this Court was vacated on 15.2.1999. Now this order shall dispose of the matter pertaining to financial bank guarantee in respect of Karnataka circle.3. The relevant portion of the financial bank guarantee submitted by the plaintiff in respect of Karnataka Circle reads as under:-'In consideration of the President of India acting through the Telecom Authority (hereinafter called `the Authority') having agreed to grant a licen...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Revathy Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT596TriDel

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: The respondents herein were manufacturing Main cord/flex cord with plugs affixed with brand names "Sumeet" /"Sears" of their customers and selling those goods to the brand owners namely M/s. Power Control Appliances in the case of brand name "Sumeet" and M/s. Elcot in the case of brand name "Sears". These main cords/flex cords were utilised by the customers as parts of their appliances, namely, Mixies and Grinders by M/s. Power Control Appliances and as part of TV by M/s. Sears Elcot.2. A question has arisen whether the benefit of Notification No.175/86-C.E. can be denied to the clearances of the said goods having the brand name affixed as "Sumeet" and "Sears" as the case may be, on the basis of para 7 of the said notification. Lower appellate authority has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., holding that the brand name "Sumeet" or "Sears" is meant for Mixies or TVs, as the case may be, and not for flex cords and...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Century Rayons

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT650TriDel

1. Matter called. In this appeal of Revenue, we are concerned with classification of a fabric described as "leader liner cloth" which is attached to tyre cord fabric and which is used to lead the tyre cord fabrics in the manufacture of tyres.2. The respondents themselves in their submissions dated 4-9-1998 before the Tribunal had given the following position on leader liner fabrics : (i) Leader liner fabrics is an extended portion of Heder Tabby weave of any Tyrecord warp sheet. In this, the warp is tyre cord threads and the weft is coarse cotton yarn, woven closely up to 15 pickes per inch usage. (ii) It is having its use in Tyre cord manufacturing units, in their dipping and calendering machine before stopping the dipping/calendering machine. The Leader liner is passed through the entire length of machine. (iii) While starting the dipping/calendering machine it acts as a leader and leads the tyre cord warp sheet through lits path and hence it is named as Leader liner. (v) Leader lin...

Abdul Kadar Ibrahim Khatri Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT278TriDel

1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are as follows : Another party namely K.P. Tibriwala has been undertaking the process of dyeing and printing of fabrics. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the process of dyeing and printing of the fabric are carried out by the appellants without the aid of power. However, K.P. Tibriwala had been using power while mixing the dyes or colours and again at the stage of packing of the processed fabrics, the packing of the said fabrics with the aid of machines is being done inasmuch as the sealing of the packs in which processed fabrics is packed, is done with the aid of machine. It is these two processes namely (1) mixing of colours with the aid of power and (2) packing of fabrics with the aid of power, on which basis lower appellate authority sought to deny the benefit of Notification No.54/87, dated 1-3-1987.2. The appellant herein is the owner of the premises wherein such process is undertaken by Shri K.P. Tibriwala. The appellant has been i...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Universal Drinks P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT576TriDel

1. Issue involved herein is whether the respondents herein can simultaneously avail of the benefit of Mod-vat credit in respect of some product (Maaza Mango) and also the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/89-C.E. in respect of some other product 'Bisleri Soda'. The issue already stands decided by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ess Ess Engineers and Ors., Chandigarh v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 596 (Tribunal) = 1998 (29) RLT 859 (CEGAT). Tribunal in this judgment has taken note of dismissal of appeal by Revenue against Tribunal's judgment in the case of Faridabad Tools Put. Ltd. as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A149. In view of this dismissal of Revenue's appeal, Tribunal's judgment in Kamani Food reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 202 is no longer a good law.2. Relying on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ess Ess Engineers (supra), we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue....

All India Esi Corporation Vs. Director General, Esi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The first applicant-All India Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short) Employees Federation represents Group 'C and D employees and the second applicant-an Assistant (Group C), is an employee of the ESIC. They are aggrieved by A-l and A-3 (colly) communications dated 1.11.93. 13.1.91 and 7.5.91 respectively by which they have been denied the scale of pay (Rs. 1640-2900) given to Assistants and Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS for short) despite admission by both the respondents that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the applicants are the same as of Assistants in CSS. The dispute, therefore, basically relates to the parity in the pay scale sought for by the Assistants working in the ESIC vis-a-vis Assistants/Steno Gr. C in the CSS.2. Arguing strenuously for applicants, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, learned senior Counsel, has assailed the denial of aforesaid pay scale to applicants on several grounds. We, however bring out the ...

Hari Om Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. B. Datta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)357; 80(1999)DLT103

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1.On 20.11.1991 the Division Bench of this Court had allowed the application of the petitioner against the order dismissing the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and had referred the matter to the arbitration of Mr. Justice J.D. Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The order of the Court, it appears was not communicated to the arbitrator and he entered upon the reference only on 18.8.1994. Time of four months for making and publishing the award having expired on 18.12.1994 the respondent refused to agree to the extension of time to enable the Arbitrator to make and publish his award. This necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time to enable the arbitrator to make and publish his award. 2. Notice of the application having been served upon the respondent reply thereto has been filed and the respondent has objected to the time being extended. It is stated that the petitioner was ...

Nawal Kishore Ghanshyam Das Bangard Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IIIAD(Delhi)613; 1999CriLJ2258; 1999(50)DRJ108; 2000(70)ECC176; ILR1999Delhi198

ORDERK.S. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 28th June, 1998 passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1974 (for short the 'Act').2. It is inter alias alleged that the customs department at the Air cargo complex, Sahar International Airport, Mumbai received information that the petitioner and Amol Gavaskar had been claiming and receiving duty drawback, without exporting goods on the basis of forged documents for more than a year from the customs department at Air cargo complex, Mumbai. Acting on that information, the officers of the customs department on 16th October, 1997 raided the business premises of the petitioner and amongst others seized US $ 23,900, Singapore Dollars 14,500, Hong-Kong Dollars 350, Italian Lira 10,000, UK Pounds 13,834, Travellers cheques of US $ 16,050 and UK Pounds 17,200. Since only the Directorate of Enforcement (FERA) was the authorised agency to enquire about ...

Ajay Khurana and ors. Vs. Meenu Khurana and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ92

N.G. Nandi, J.1. Notice to the respondents. Mr. M.S. Butalia, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2/State. Let a copy of the petition be supplied to him.2. Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate states that he waives the service and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. He further states that respondent No. 1 is present in court and that he would file power of attorney on behalf of respondent No. 1. It is further staled that he has filed affidavit of respondent No. 1 in support of the prayer for quashing of the FIR and that necessary order quashing the FIR filed by respondent No. 1 be passed today .3. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have been praying for the quashing of the FIR No. 393/97 P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi for the offence under Sections 498-A/406 IPC initiated by respondent No. 1 (complainant).4. The petitioner No. 1, to substantiate the averments of the petition, has sworn in affidavit and testified to the effect that respondent No. 1...

Jagar Cements P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC240Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed with reference to the order of Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 17-2-1995. The notice for today's hearing was duly served on the appellants, as apparent from the acknowledgement in the file. In spite of this, neither any appearance has been caused nor any other communication requesting for adjournment or otherwise has been received. We have, therefore, gone through the case records and heard ld. DR.2. Ld. DR stated that in this case the basic issue involved is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification 24/91 or not.3. The fact is that initially the appellant was availing the benefit of Notification No. 1 /93, during the financial year, in question.Subsequently, during the same year, he wanted to switch over to Notification No. 24/91. This notification, however, bars the benefit thereof if the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 or 1/93, had been availed. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in rejecting his petition.4. ...