Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 11 of about 321 results (0.020 seconds)Weston Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT199TriDel
1. The appellant M/s. Weston Component Limited sought clearance of 2000 pieces declared in the bill of entry as "Mechanical Tuners (Mitsumi)" at a value of HK $ 26500/- CIF i.e. a unit price of HK $ 13.25 CIF per tuner. The supplier of the consignment was M/s. Okatonic Trading Company, Hong Kong, and the invoice dated 15-4-1994 covering the goods described the goods as "electronic component" "TUNERS". On examination of the goods it was noticed that original description and markings on the packing boxes had been removed, but one box described the goods to be "DBS Tuner TSU-2; 100 pieces." Thereupon investigation was taken up by the Customs authorities at Hong Kong and and it was revealed that the supplier of the goods had filed an export declaration at Hong Kong Customs for the said consignment and this declaration furnished a value of Hong Kong $ 2,18,280 FOB i.e. a unit price of Hong Kong $ 109.14 per piece as against the price of UK 26500 for the consignment and unit price of HK $ 1...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Sethi Vs. Nirmal Shyam Kumari Sethi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)117; 82(1999)DLT694; (2000)124PLR37
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.97 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC as not pressed on the ground that the said application was not pressed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent seeking for a decree for grant of permanent injunction in respect of sale, alienation and restraining the respondents from transferring the possession in respect of the suit property. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the petitioner seeking for temporary injunction on which the Additional District Judge passed an order for maintenance of status quo in respect of title and possession of the suit property under his order dated 30.6.1995. The petitioner herein has alleged that the aforesaid order of injunction was wilfully disobeyed and/or violated by the respondent and, thereforee, ...
Tag this Judgment!D.D. Chadha Vs. State (Nct, Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)309; 81(1999)DLT338; 1999(51)DRJ31; ILR1999Delhi304
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 6.11.1995 passed by Shri K.S. Pal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and 14.1.1998 passed by shri S.K. Tandon, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. R. No. 25/96. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Hind Automobiles Corporation, which is the registered consumer of the electricity connection of K. No. 0093687648 at 38, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi. On 1.6.1992 factory premises of the petitioner were inspected by the Enforcement Staff petitioner were inspected by the Enforcement Staff of the DESU, when it was discovered that three half seals of the meter i.e. OL-12055, OL-12056 and OL-120587 of monogram IMD-84 were tampered with. On 1.7.1992, Asstt. Engineer Mr. P.C. Bhardwaj lodged the FIR at the P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase III, New Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into s...
Tag this Judgment!Sapna Ahuja Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)407; 81(1999)DLT325; 1999(51)DRJ36
ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I propose to dispose of this revision at the stage of admission itself. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 12.2.1997 passed by Ms. Reena Singh Nag, MM discharging the respondents of the offence charged under Section 498-A/406 IPC. 3. The preamble of the prosecution reveals that on 7.12.1994, the petitioner was married to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 (late RSD Ahuja) was the father and respondent No. 4 is the mother of respondent No. 2. The respondents No. 2 to 4 were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage of the petitioner, which projected a shadow on marital life of the petitioner and the respondent No 2. Petitioner's married life became gloomy and she was subjected to harassment and mental cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry. The respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 took active role in perpetrating torture on the petitioner. Apprehending danger to her life, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Nalom K. Noidu Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)411; 81(1999)DLT251; 1999(50)DRJ828
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. At the pre-detention stage, by this petition the petitioner is seeking quashing of the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the Act). 2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is employed in Doha, Qatar, Dubai; on 13th June, 1988 his father was arrested consequent upon the seizure of 14 gold biscuits by the Superintendent, Central Excise from his house; as per statements of his father the petitioner was named as the person responsible for the same, which were subsequently retracted; the detention order was passed against his father under Section 3(1) of the Act which was quashed by this court; detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act was also passed against the petitioner while he was not in India, which has not been executed. 3. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, it is stated that the petitioner had been sending smuggled gold f...
Tag this Judgment!Lajwanti Bhatia Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)755; 81(1999)DLT893
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. Rule.This is yet another case of double allotment wherein the flat allotted to the petitioner was allotted to some other person. The petitioner's representations for allotment of an alternative flat have been ignored by the respondents. The common man is again at the receiving end and has to run from pillar to post for the enforcement of his legitimate rights.2. It is a sad commentary on the functioning of our statutory bodies. After 52 years of independence we claim to be free citizens of this Court but we are slaves in the hands of the statutory authorities. Instead of Realizing their mistake and making the alternative allotment and issuing a demand-cum-allotment letter the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Court for redressal of his grievances.3. A scheme was announced by the DDA for allotment of flats, namely, New Pattern Registration Scheme - 1979 under the Delhi Development (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority Vs. Hargobind Jaggi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)410; 82(1999)DLT469; 1999(51)DRJ234
M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the order dated 2nd December, 1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 7/1993 making the award against Claim Nos. 2 and 3 a rule of the Court. 2. The respondent entered into a contract with the appellant for execution of the work of 'loading, unloading and cartage of materials like pipes and fittings'. Certain disputes arose between the parties while executing the aforesaid contract and the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. R.C. Malhotra. The said Arbitrator made his award on 24.12.1992. The award was filed in the Court as against which an objection was filed by the DDA. The Additional District Judge set aside the award given by the Arbitrator as against Claim No. 1 and remanded the same back to the Arbitrator to decide the matter afresh So far Claim Nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, the Additional District Judge upheld the said award and made the same rule of the Court. Being...
Tag this Judgment!Varun Prakash Vs. Delhi University and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999(50)DRJ820
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The petitioner sought admission into LL.B. course. He took entrance examination and he was successful. He must have gone to deposit fee on or before the 24th of July, 1999. On the 22nd of July, 1999, he fell down from the stairs. On the 30th of July, he became all right and reported to the University for depositing fee for admission. That was declined by the University on the ground that the petitioner has produced the bogus medical certificate.2. The stand taken by the University is totally untenable. There is no point of University going into the details of the nature of the injury suffered by the petitioner. The University should have considered the matter with due compassion and circumspection. The view taken by the University is not at all reasonable. The petitioner is entitled to admission into the LL.B course.3. The first respondent is directed to admit the petitioner in the LL.B. course for the academic year 1999-2000 and the petitioner shall appear before ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nagama Engg. Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT343TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue is whether dies manufactured by the respondents and used as interchangeable tools captively used for cold pressing or stamping of metal sheets, are classifiable under Heading 8207 as decided by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order or 8462 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Revenue.2. Shri Ashok Kumar, ld. JDR, submitted that Heading 8207 applies only to the dies for drawing or extruding metal where the dies manufactured by the respondents are used for stamping purposes and as per HSN Notes under Heading 8207, dies, punches, tools and other interchangeable tools for machine tools or appliances, other than those specified above, are classified as parts of the machines or appliances for which they are intended and submitted that, accordingly, the dies manufactured by the respondents will be classifiable under Heading 8462 as these are used in the machines for stamping.3. No one was present on ...
Tag this Judgment!Motwane Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT341TriDel
1. The short point involved in this appeal filed by The Motwane Mfg.Co. Pvt. Ltd. is whether the benefit of Notification No. 91/89 is available in respect of 'Metal Film Resistors and Arrays' imported by the appellants.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants in spite of service of notice. We, therefore, heard Shri Ramanathan, learned DR and perused the records. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has disallowed the benefit of notification only on the ground that they have not challenged the order of assessment at the port of importation when the benefit of Notification No. 91/89 was denied. Subsequently, the goods were warehoused by filing into Bill of Entry. Subsequently, at the time of clearance of goods from warehouse the appellants had produced a letter dated 13-2-1990 from the Department of Electronics to the effect that Resistors arrays of types 1776 and 1787 of M/s. Caddock Electronics Inds. are classifiable under the category of ...
Tag this Judgment!