Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 14 of about 243 results (0.020 seconds)Ram Saran Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)163; 2000CriLJ2656; 79(1999)DLT701; 2000(54)DRJ203
ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J.1.This revision petition is directed against conviction of the accused for offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 2(ia), (i), (f), (h), (j), (m) punishable under Section 16(i), (ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) and for violation of Rule 5(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules' for short).The accused has been ordered to undergorigourous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay the fine and further undergo simple mprisonment for three months.In appeal the conviction as well as the sentence has been confirmed. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has filed this revision petition on three grounds:firstly, there was violation of Section 13(2) of the Act for non-supply of the report of the Public Analyst in time; secondly, the defense led by the accused has not been properly appreciated; and thirdly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Wazir Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 80(1999)DLT44; [2000(84)FLR133]
ORDERMadan B. Lokur, J.1.In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged the correctness of the Order dated 24th April, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No.2776/92. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner challenging his dismissal from service. 2. The Petitioner, a constable with the Delhi Police was posted at a check post at Loni near the border of Delhi and Ghaziabad. 3. On 25th May, 1990 Deep Chand, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East District, Delhi (DCP/NE) and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Shahadra carried out a check during which it was found that the Petitioner Along with Head Constable Limji Bhai and three persons from the general public were consuming beer inside the check post. Recovery was made of four empty bottles and one full bottle of beer as also four full glasses and one half fil...
Tag this Judgment!Surat Singh (Ex.Ct.) Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)409; 1999(50)DRJ351
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1.The petitioner has claimed disability pension. The petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force on the 10th of July, 1964. In the year 1967, the petitioner suffered from Myopia and on the 25th of March, 1967, he was discharged from service. Having keep quiet for a considerable time, he claimed disability pension. 2. On the 7th of January, 1994, the Addl.DIGP, Hyderabad-5, passed the following order:- 'Please refer to your application dated 4.11.93. 2. In this connection, it is submitted for your information that on checking of your service record it was seen that you were appointed in CRPF as temporary Constable w.e.f.10.7.1964 and after rendering 2 years 8 months 15 days service you were invalidated out w.e.f.25.3.67, consequence of 'very high Myopia and incapacitated for further service'. You were not confirmed in the force. 3. As per rules in force at that time you were not entitled for any Disability Pension etc. Hence it is not possible for ...
Tag this Judgment!Tilak Tewari Vs. the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ181
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner by this writ petition has sought the quashing of orders dated 9.2.1998 and 12.8.1998, passed by respondent No. 1, i.e. the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider higher offers made for the purchase of hypothecated machines in question.2. Vide order dated 9.2.1998 passed in OA 730/95, the respondent No. 1 rejected petitioner's challenge to the report of the Receiver, Late Mr. Justice G.C. Jain, recommending acceptance of the offer made by M/s. Aravali Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of the hypothecated machinery. Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 declining the request of learned counsel for the petitioner for time to file an application for better offer, noting that the sale has been affected and the earnest money has already been deposited.3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Access Maritime Corporation Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 79(1999)DLT657; 1999(50)DRJ46
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent no.1 to encash the unconditional Bank Guarantee No.009100197 dated 15th July, 1997 in favor of the petitioner and for an Order declaring the decision of the respondent Bank contained in its letter dated 18th November, 1997 as illegal.2. The petitioner is vessel owner engaged in the business of carriage by sea. Its principal place of business is at 34, Possidonos Avenue, 174 55 Alimos, Athens, Greece. The petitioner entered into a Charter Party Agreement with M/s Lucky Exports, respondent no. 2 herein, for the purpose of transporting rice from Visakhapatnam Port in India to Novorrissk, a Port in Russia, abroad 'DANUBE TRADER', a vessel belonging to the petitioner herein. As per the terms of the Charter Party Agreement M/s Lucky Exports were to furnish the petitioner with an irrevocable Bank Guarantee. Pursuant to the said agreement the Syndicate Bank executed an irrevocable and uncon...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC658
1. These are a group of three appeals against three orders passed by Collector (Appeals), Meerut. One of the appeals viz., Appeal No.E/657/93-D has been filed by the Revenue and the other two, by M/s.Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd. since the parties to the three appeals are common, they were heard together and is being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate appeared for M/s. Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd., and Shri A.K. Agarwal, ld. JDR appeared for the Department.3. First we take up the two Appeals filed by M/s. Vishwa Rattan Refractories (P) Ltd. ('VR' for short), VR were engaged in the manufacture of Fire Clay Refractories falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 and presently under Chapter Heading No. 6901 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing of Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 as amended. The case of the Department is that with effect from 30-10-1987 and upto November, 1988, VR had become ineligible for th...
Tag this Judgment!Motorola India Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(85)LC449Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, who while sanctioning the refund of Rs. 5,39,674/- representing customs duty paid in excess on rack mounted modems covered by Bill of Entry, had ordered crediting of the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund constituted under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act 1944, on the ground that the appellants did not discharge the burden cast upon them to prove that they had not passed on the duty burden to their customers.2 I have heard Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant, and Shri T.A. Arunachalam, learned DR.3. In May 1995, the appellants had imported 2 Nos. of rack mounting modems from M/s. Motorola ISG/Codex USA, consisting of In the purchase order dated 9.3.1995, the prices of Modulus 21 Nest 230V has been indicated as US $ 1135 per piece and the price of the 21 Card 10 Slot B/P has be...
Tag this Judgment!Mukul Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT84TriDel
1. These are five appeals filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.The Commissioner had directed confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 99,39,334/- seized from the appellants by the Officers of Central Excise vide panchnama dated 12-7-1995. A duty demand of Rs. 53,55,8627- on the goods was also confirmed on goods valued at Rs. 2,73,54,179 /- allegedly clandestinely removed by appellants during the period 1993-94 and 1994-95. Penalty Rs. 55 lakhs was imposed on the appellant firm and further penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each imposed on Shri Mukul Gupta, partner, Smt. Vandana Gupta and Veena Gupta proprietors of M/s. Quality Chemicals and M/s. Quality Flavour Exports under Section 209A. A penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on Shri Alok Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. West Roadways under Rule 209A. All the above appellants are in appeal before us.2. Shri Kamajit Singh, ld. Advocate appeared for all the appellants and Shri Satnam S...
Tag this Judgment!Sprint R.P.G. India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC165Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated the 25-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of the goods described in the Bill of Entry as Global Sprint Fax (GSF) software and claimed classification under sub-heading 8524 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also claimed the benefit of Notification No. 59 /95 as applicable to the software.3. On examination of the goods, it was found that, in fact, the goods described as GSF software was hard disk drive, which is a storage unit of automatic data processing machine. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to classify the goods under Heading 8471.93 of the Customs Tariff. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that the goods were classifiable under sub-heading 8471 of the Customs Tariff and allowed the benefit of Notification No. 59/95 Cus as applicable to hard disk drive.4. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, subm...
Tag this Judgment!Titan Watches Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)LC976Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In this case the benefit of Notification No. 43/85-Cus. was denied to the appellants on power cells as components of quartz watches.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants made import of components of Quartz panel of wrist watches and claimed concessional rate of duty under the Notification No. 43/85-Cus. The benefit of notification was extended in respect of components except the power cells. The appellants cleared the consignment of power cells on payment of duty and, thereafter, file a refund claim and the same was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants filed appeal and the same was rejected.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Notification No. 43/85-Cus. provides concessional rate of duty to the components of mechanical wrist watches and quartz analog wrist watches falling under Chapter 91 ...
Tag this Judgment!