Delhi Court July 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT565TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/S. National Rayon Corporation Limited is whether the benefit of Notification No. 281/86, dated 24-4-1986 is available in respect of glass Funnels and Guides manufactured by them and used captively in their spinning department.2. Shri N.K. Rajvant, Manager Excise of the appellants, submited that both the impugned goods are used by them in their spinning department for maintenance of their machines; that both these goods are part of machinery used in the spinning department and on account of their being broken and on account of their constant use, they are replaced by the Funnels and Guides manufactured in their workshop in the factory. In support of their contenFtion he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. Century Rayon v.C.C.E., Bombay, Final Order No. E/268-269/98-D, dated 18-3-1998.3. Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, mentioned that when the department filed appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the Assistant...
Global Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT554TriDel
1. Arguing for the appellants Shri Kapil Vaish, learned Advocate submitted that the dispute is in respect of following items. Whether Modvat credit is permissible or not in respect of these items is to be considered in this appeal :- 2. Shri Kapil Vaish, learned Advocate submitted that he is not pressing the items except Sl. No. 1, 2 and 5. On the other hand Shri S.Srivastava, ld. JDR submitted that with reference to the items which are not pressed by the other side already decided in favour of the Revenue.3. With reference to the tubes and pipes, Shri Kapil Vaish submitted that the issue involved herein has been concluded by the decisions by the Tribunal as reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 354, 1997 (96) E.L.T. 404 and 1998 (99) E.L.T. 54 (T) respectively.4. As regards to second issue i.e. Sugar Machinery parts he referred to the show cause notice wherein Annexure to the show cause notice clearly indicates they are Sugar Machinery parts. Accordingly, the items are covered under Clause (c...
Multimetals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT656TriDel
1. In the impugned order ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. The Dy. Commissioner while adjudicating the case confirmed- demand of Rs. 64,251.44 and another demand of Rs. 11,196.38. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the impugned appeals.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants manufactured Copper and Copper Alloys, billets, rods. During the course of scrutiny of the records of the appellants it was noticed that they were manufacturing tailor-made goods and were receiving advances against the order of supply of such goods. These advances were being kept by the appellants for more man six to eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Department therefore, alleged that the interest which /would have been earned on these advances should be included in the assessable value in terms of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellan...
Kundan Steel Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT680TriDel
1. These are 7 appeals filed by the two appellants arising out of common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Allahabad.2. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Counsel submitted that the issue involved in all the appeals is the availability of Notification No.202/88, dated 20-5-1988 which provides exemption to finished product it manufactured out of the specified goods mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the said notification. He, further submitted that he is not pressing the charge of denial of the benefit of notification by Collector (Appeals) in respect of used rails, wheels, axles etc. following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Re-rolling Mills v.Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T.660 (Tribunal). He, however, submitted that in Vivek Re-rolling case, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of deemed Modvat credit to the appellant as their product have now been held to be chargeable to duty as benefit of Notification No. 202/88 was held...
Nafed Processed Foods Employes Union and ors. Vs. Union of India and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)172; 81(1999)DLT8; 1999(50)DRJ724; ILR1999Delhi106
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Employees Union of NAFED Processed Foods. NAFED in full is National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd., and was incorporated in 1958 as a co-operative society and in 1979, a food processing plant at Lawrence Road, Delhi was set up and the present writ petition is filed by the employees of this processing plant. There was a previous litigation between the petitioner-Union and the management of NAFED which arose on account of the discrimination alleged by the employes regarding denial of parity with the Federation employees as opposed to the industrial employees which the members of the petitionerUnion were classified as. In respect of this discrimination alleged by the Union, a writ petition No. 89/1989 was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and on 16th February, 1995, this writ petition was allowed by the Supreme Court which inter-alia held the employees of...
Sedu Ram (Havildar) Vs. the Chief of Army Staff and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)134; 84(2000)DLT687; 2000(53)DRJ395
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner on the date of the writ petition was working as Havildar and he is still on the same post. According to him, he was wrongly denied his promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar while his junior Subedar Mahender Singh, respondent No. 4, was promoted overlooking the claims of the petitioner on the basis of the adverse remark made by the third respondent Col. Ravi Mohan, who wanted the fourth respondent to be promoted. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass. 2. The petitioner was due for promotion w.e.f. 12.11.1994. He was superseded by his junior Hav. Om Prakash. The fourth respondent Mahender Singh, was given promotion w.e.f. 1.8.1996 superseding the petitioner. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of getting promotion, a Havildar should have earned two 'Above Average' Grades and should be three 'Above ,and three 'High Averages' in the grading in the Annual Confidential Reports. 3. When the petitioner's case was considered in 199...
Khema Nand (L/Nk.) Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)316; 2000(53)DRJ397
ORDERK. Ramamurthy, J.1. The writ petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- 'In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the interest of justice, it is, thereforee, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ, order and/or direction in the nature of :- (i) MANDAMUS thereby directing the respondents to forthwith cancel the transfer/postings of the petitioner J&K; in view of the psychiatric status of the petitioner except that to retain him either in Delhi or in the alternative to effect his postings and transfer preferably to Bombay, Madras or Bangalore where the Psychiatric Medical Treatment facilities and Orthopedic medical treatment facilities are available to the petitioner and his wife and in all a peace station. AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE To accept the resignation submitted by the petitioner herein.' 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be narrated thus in the following terms:- On the 6th of Ma...
Mohan Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)592; 81(1999)DLT313
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the above suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant MCD from demolishing and/or sealing property bearing No. N-15 & 16, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi and also from causing any obstruction or interference in any manner in the peaceful possession of the said property. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property in possession and has filed the Khatauni being Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2.2. The plaintiff's case is that the property in question was built in the year 1967 and has been used since 1971 for residential cum commercial purposes. The plaintiff contends that on 14.2.1994, the staff of the defendant Corporation without having served any notice under Section 343(1) of the MCD Act came to the site and attempted to demolish the premises in question. The plaintiff is being used for the purposes of shops. There is a tenant by the name of M/s N.K. Steel Works, who had been carrying on its business and has a trade lice...
V.K. Dewan and Co. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)671; 81(1999)DLT299
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. By this order, I would be disposing of IA. 1115/97 being objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and IA. 1495/98, being an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 2. Petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was registered as a suit, for filing of the award dated 26.4.1996 made and published by Sh. S.M.Hasnain, respondent No. 2, the sole Arbitrator. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the parties. Petitioner accepted the notice of the filing of the award on 13.1.1997. Respondent No. 1 was served with the notice of the filing of the award on 21.1.1997. 3. The petitioner filed objections in respect of claim No. 3 and claim No. 6 of the award. In claim No. 3, the Arbitrator had rejected the claim of the petitioner for Rs 70,650/- on account of cost of stores, machinery, tools/plants and temporary structures, which were alleged to have been taken over by the Delhi...
Madhu Garg and ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1999
Reported in: 1999IVAD(Delhi)777; [1999]97CompCas939(Delhi); 80(1999)DLT593; 1999(50)DRJ630; ILR1999Delhi116
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 14,88,300/- on the premise that they are legal heirs of late Shri Kailash Chand Garg who was entitled to the benefits of four insurance policies for a total sum of Rs. 13,17,654.20 Shri Kailash Chand Garg died on 24.6.1997 leaving behind his widow, plaintiff No. 1 and children, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. The Defendant have preferred the present application under Order xxxvII Rule 3 (5) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for unconditional leave to defend the suit. It is this application which falls for determination.2. The plaintiffs had demanded the said sum from the Defendant Life Insurance Corporation of India in terms of their notice dated 7.4.1998, and the latter had declined to make payment on the ground that a 'Succession Certificate' should be obtained by the plaintiffs. The defendant relies on Sections 212 to 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »