Delhi Court May 1999 Judgments

Medical Council of India Vs. Nityanand Ghosh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)579; AIR1999Delhi380; 80(1999)DLT486

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J. 1.This review petition has been filed by the Medical Council of India, respondent in the writ petition, against the Judgment of this court dated 22.4.1998. The review petition has been filed on the ground that the following errors had crept into the Judgment:- (1) The writ petitioner had joined the medical course on the basis of an entrance test. (2) The writ petitioner completed a full six year medical course. (3) After completing the six years course, the writ petitioner has done the requisite internship. (4) The writ petitioner is entitled to permanent registration since he has done the requisite internship. 2. To properly comprehend all the three objections on which the review tition has been filed, it is necessary to refer to relevant previsions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 13(3) of the said Act reads as under:- Section 13(3) The medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India which are included in Part II of the T...

Standipack Private Limited and Another Vs. M/S. Oswal Trading Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)613; AIR2000Delhi23; 80(1999)DLT56

ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.By this common order I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I.A. 11829/1998, 774/1999 and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391/1998: I.A. 9131/1996 & 1530/1997 in Suit No. 2428/1996; I.A. 1207/1997, 2588/1997 & 3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I.A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I.A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I.A. 9132/1996 & 4746/1998 in Suit No. 2427/1996 & I.A. 7374/1995 in C.O. No. 25/1995. For convenience sake, the plaintiff in Suit No. 2391/1998, M/s. Standipack Private Limited is being described as the plaintiff throughout in the present order and the other parties are described as defendants. Injunction applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The case sought to be made out by the plaintiff in the injunction applications is that the patent in respect of pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubri...

inder Motor Service Vs. M/S. Haryana Dairy Development

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)978; 80(1999)DLT122; 1999(50)DRJ587; (1999)123PLR23

S.N. Kapoor, J.1. This order shall dispose of an application under Order 12, Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the defendant is tenant in the premises in suit on monthly rent of Rs.5,92,653/- under the lease agreement dated 9th April, 1988. Receipt of notice Ex.P-2 is also not disputed. The certificate Form-A of the Registrar of Firms has been filed. In view of the disputed documents, the entire case of the plaintiff stands admitted. A prayer for decree of possession of the suit property, could be separated from the prayer for mesne profits. 2. The only dispute which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant is that initially the premises were let out in January, 1994 on monthly rent of Rs.3,279/-. The rent was enhanced from time to time under the garb of execution of fresh lease deed (Annexures 3,4,5 and 6 of the written statement) and thus, the rent enhanced periodically by Rs. 5,92,653/-. The lease deed dated 9th April, 1988 had...

Joginder Kumar Gandhi Vs. D.D.A. and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 80(1999)DLT217; 1999(50)DRJ427

M.K. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner was awarded the work contract by respondent No.1 in respect of which an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The tenders for the aforesaid work were invited on 11.7.1986. After filing of the said award in this court, the petitioner filed an objection which is registered as I.A.No.4865/87.2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner and I propose to dispose of the objections claim wise and the suit, by this common order.CLAIM NO. 1 1. This was a claim of the petitioner for payment of a sum of Rs.20 lacs towards the work carried out in saturated soil and also towards pumping out water. The arbitrator considered the evidence on record and on appreciation thereof, held that claim of the petitioner for extra payment for pumping out water and carrying out work under saturated soil conditions in excavation for trenches is not justified and accordingly rejected...

Sajjan Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sarvesh Chandra, Chairman - These appeals are directed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/68/B/SDE/PKA of 1998, dated 30-6-1998 under which a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs has been imposed on Sajjan Singh, (the appellant in Appeal No. 15 of 1999) for sale and purchase of foreign currency thereby contravening the provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). Appeal No. 16 of 1999 is directed against the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed under the same order on the appellant Shambu Singh for aiding and abetting Sajjan Singh for the contravention committed by him. 2. The memoranda of these appeals are accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, stay of the impugned order and waiver from pre-deposit of the penalty amounts. The delay in filing these appeals is of 138 days. Since this Board is prohibited, in terms of the proviso to section 52(2) of the Act, to condone the delay where an appeal has been filed after the expiry of 90 days of the re...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Z.A. Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC407Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this Appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the Respondents M/s. Z.A. Enterprises were eligible to avail of Mod-vat credit under Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules in respect of inputs lying in stock on 31-3-1995 without the permission of the Assistant Commissioner.2. The facts in brief are that Modvat credit under Rule 57A was made available in respect of Plastic Bags and sacks with effect from 16-3-1995. The Respondents filed a declaration for availing of Modvat credit on such sacks under Rule 57G on 6-7-1995. Further, they, in their letter dated 4-9-1995, requested for allowance of Modvat Credit on sacks with effect from 1-4-1995 which was permitted to them by the Assistant Commissioner under letter dated 18-3-1996 condoning the delay in filing the declaration under Rule 57G. The Respondents availed total Modvat Credit of Rs. 65,857.95 ps. which included the credit in respect of these sacks lying in stock with them as on 31-3-1995. The Assistant Commi...

Banarasi Lal Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(85)LC676Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal filed by Shri Banarasi Lal, 296 pieces of Winchester disc drives valued Rs. 31,60,000/- had been absolutely confiscated and after taking a lenient view in the matter, a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-had been imposed on Shri Banarasi Lal under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was alleged in the show cause notice that Shri Banarasi Lal had tampered with the labels on the packages imported so as to facilitate clandestine and surreptitious removal of those packages from the Cargo Complex. It was found that no bill of entry had been filed with regard to the consignments in question and it was also found that importers' firm was not in existence and the address given at the Airway Bill was incomplete and fictitious. Shri Banarasi Lal in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had admitted that he had tampered with the labels for consideration of Rs. 2,000/-.2. Shri Banarasi Lal appearing in person submitted that he had been falsely implicated i...

Paushak Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT251TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The appellants filed the written submissions and made a request to decide their case on merits.2. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise held that phosgene gas has extensive use and it can be stored and it has a shelf-life, hence it is marketable and liable to Central Excise duty.3. The appellants, in their written submissions, relied upon the earlier order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise in which the Collector of Central Excise held that phosgene gas is not "goods" and hence not chargeable to duty. Their submissions is that once the gas in question was held to be not "goods" and not chargeable to duty subsequently the Revenue cannot hold contrary to this finding.4. Learned SDR, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the issue in present appeal relates to the approval of classification list w.e.f. 25-10-1991...

Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT353TriDel

1. Arguing the four stay Applications Ld. Sr. Counsel, Shri Hidyatullah draws attention to the unconditional stay order passed by the S.R.B. of this Tribunal in the Appellants' own case vide Order No. Stay/855/98, dated 25-8-1998.2. The ld. Counsel submits that the issue involved relates to whether the activity engaged in by the applicants in putting together certain bought out items and packing them and marketing them with their brand name would amount to manufacture. He submits that on similar facts four different Commissionerates had passed orders dropping the duty demand.The S.R.B. had taken note of the said orders as well as the question whether the activities engaged in by the Applicants would amount to manufacture in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The ld.Counsel further submits that the S.R.B. of this Tribunal, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the present applicants, had given full waiver of pre-deposit and penalty demanded by the Commission...

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)LC142Tri(Delhi)

1. In these five appeals filed by the following appellants, the common issue involved is whether the process of crushing of stones amounts to manufacture so as to make crushed stones liable to Central Excise duty : 2. Shri A.N. Haksar, learned Sr. Advocate, submitted that M/s.Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., appellants No. 1 are engaged in the business of construction work; that they were awarded work relating to construction of tunnel for Chamera Works; that activity of crushing of stones/rocks has been considered as manufacturing activity by the excise authorities. He further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, in their own case, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 123 (T), has held that "the crushing of stones into small stones of size would constitute manufacture." He, however, contended that the Appellate Tribunal had not noticed the decision in the case of SAIL v. C.C.E., 1991 (54) E.L.T 414 (T), while deciding the matter. In SAIL case, it was held by the Tribunal that "no process o...