Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 27 of about 321 results (0.018 seconds)Mussadi Lal Vs. Phoolwati and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT352; 1999(51)DRJ139; 1999RLR471
Vijender Jain, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said order was passed on 4th day of June, 1994. Since then the matter has been pending in this Court.2. Mr. Andley, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the eviction petition the respondent has shown that he was having only two rooms on the ground floor. However, the Local Commissioner who was appointed at the request of the respondent reported that there were three portions of the property in question and the respondent had twelve room, one shop and one factory which was sufficient for his accommodation. Mr. Andley has contended that there was material concealment by the respondent with regard to the accommodation available with him.3. The second argument advanced by Mr. Andley was that the testimony of Sh. Ki...
Tag this Judgment!Anjini Devi and ors. Vs. V.S.T. Industries Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT86; 1999(50)DRJ807
S.K. Mahajan, J. 1. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs in the premises measuring 2175 sq. ft. The premises was taken on lease with effect from 1.6.1986 for a period of five years. The lease was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 29.5.1986. Before the expiry of the period of five years the landlords on 1.12.1994 wrote to the defendant that as the premises was required by them for their personal use they would not like to renew the same for a further period after its expiry on 31.5.1995. The original lease deed provided that after the expiry of the lease period the lease can be renewed by mutual consent for a further period of five years at an increase of 25% of the last paid rent. It appears that the defendant was interested in continuing as a tenant in the premises and the parties, thereforee, entered into negotiations and by a letter dated 27.1.1995 the defendant informed the plaintiff as under :'27th January, 1995 M/s. Gopi Nath and Sanjay Goel Landlord & owners, ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Surbir Singh Vs. Mahender Kumar Rajput and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)181; 2000CriLJ696; 81(1999)DLT191; 1999(51)DRJ212
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.4.1996 of Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Crl. Case No. 371/92 dropping the proceedings against the respondent.2. The circumstances leading up to the impugned order of the learned Magistrate may be indicated. In 1991, the respondents agreed to sell to the petitioner a plot of land measuring 1150 sq. yards @ Rs. 1125/- per sq. yard. It is alleged that at the time of the said agreement, the respondent falsely represented to the petitioner that the said plot had been approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for commercial use and thus fraudulently induced the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,01,000/- to them. However, the petitioner refused to pay the balance amount of sale consideration as it was discovered that the said plot was not approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for commercial use. On 2.8.1992, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondents demanding refund of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Kaur Vs. Om Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT370; 1999(51)DRJ57; 1999RLR473
Vijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the Addl. Rent Controller and thereafter by the Rent Control Tribunal, the petitioner filed this Civil Misc. (Main) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in 1995. Since then matter is pending in this Court and the eviction petition is also pending before the Addl. Rent Controller. Respondent No. 1/landlord started his attempt to recover possession of the premises by filing an application before the competent authority under the Slum (clearance & Improvement) Act in 1979. Ten years were consumed by the said authority to grant permission to respondent No. 1 for filing a petition for eviction. After obtaining the said permission, respondent No. 1 filed the petition under Section 14(1)(b), (h) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against respondent No. 2 Bhupinder Singh Bhalla in 1990. On 22.10.1990 present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 claiming herself to be...
Tag this Judgment!ircon International Limited Vs. Arvind Construction Company Limited an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 81(1999)DLT268; 1999(50)DRJ769
S.K. Mahajan, J.1. This order will dispose of the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the petitioner has challenged the award made and published by the arbitrator, namely, respondent No, 2 in the matter of disputes between the parties relating to the project nomenclature as Al-Muthana (CFBL project) in Iraq. The facts in short are:-In or about 1982-83, the New Railway Implementation Authority of the Republic of Iraq awarded certain contracts relating to a railway project in Iraq to the petitioner. One of the project was the cement factory in Al-Muthana (in short referred to as the CFBL project). The value of this project was about Iraqi Dinar 34,473 millions and the work of construction of certain buildings and temporary diversions in this project was awarded to the respondent by the petitioner. The work so awarded to the respondent was of the value of about Iraqi Dinar 0.43 millions.2. For execution of work, the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Ramuka and Bhageria Cement Pvt. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)LC135Tri(Delhi)
1.1 The appellants herein are manufacturing cement from clinker. It is also manufactured by them but entirely used captively for manufacture of cement. (i) Regarding rate of duty on cement, the final product manufactured by the appellants; and (ii) regarding rate of duty on clinker, i.e. it should bear some duty or not.2. At the outset, learned Consultant, Shri R. Pal Singh submits that the appellants do not want to contest the question of rate of duty on cement. Accordingly, to this extent, their appeal is dismissed.However, he contests the question of charging duty on clinker which is used entirely for captive consumption for manufacture of cement.Learned Consultant submits that this question is no longer res Integra insofar as the Tribunal is concerned. He submits that by virtue of Explanation VI, the goods manufactured within the factory and captively used for manufacture of specified goods covered by Notification 1/93 are not to be taken into account for the purpose of charging d...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Texel Plastic Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT344TriDel
1. Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE Fabrics coated with LDPE on both sides and selling them as Tarpaulin. Question involved in this appeal is regarding classification of the said product, Tarpaulin. Respondents contend that it is classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 3926.90 as upheld by the lower authorities. Revenue contends on the other hand it is classifiable under Tariff Heading 63.01.2. Revenue's case is on the ground that said fabrics arises out of HDPE tapes manufactured by the appellants themselves which is a textile material and, therefore, the said HDPE tapes fell under sub-heading 5406.49. Consequently, the finished product, Tarpaulin would merit classification under Heading 63.01.3. We observe, after having heard both sides, that this contention of the Revenue is no longer sustainable in view of Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in the case of Raj Packwell Industries Limited reported in 1990 (50 E.L.T. 201. Therefore, the product, as mentioned ab...
Tag this Judgment!P.V.P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(67)ECC117
1. This is an appeal against non-refund of an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs which was deposited by the assessee on the insistence of the Department.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the assessee on 25-10-1991. They saw some stocks of raw oils and vegetable ghee which were alleged to be unaccounted for. Shri S.M. Agarwal, Managing Director was required to make the deposit. In his statement recorded on 1-11-1991 he stated that he had provisionally deposited Rs. 1.5 lakhs by cheque of 1-11-1991 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He further stated that he deposited this amount to cover the duty payable on goods, if, at all, payable to cover up the liability of Central Excise Duty if at all that arises during the course of investigation. A SCN was accordingly issued to the appellant. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim.The assessee filed an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who also observed that he does not ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC676
1. The above appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order No.36/ 99. The appellants explained that they had forwarded the proof of compliance with the stay Order and did not appear because they were under the bona fide impression that the matter was fixed only for ascertaining the compliance report.3. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellants and, therefore, set aside the dismissal order and restore the appeals.4. The benefit of Notification 217/86 has been denied by the Revenue authorities to glue and UF resins manufactured and captively consumed by the appellants herein in final products such as Plywood, Vaneer, Panel flush door and Block boards etc. on the ground that these final products were being cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption available under Notification 175/86 (available to SST units).5. The learned Counsel Shri Oza draws our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Universal Electrical Industries v. C.C.E. and...
Tag this Judgment!Beena Enterprises Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT264TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Beena Enterprises, the matter relates to the small scale exemption in terms of para 4 of the Notification No.175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The appellants had a provisional Registration Certificate from the Directorate of Industries, which was valid upto 15-5-1987. They did not have a valid Registration for the period 16-5-1987 to 1-5-1990 and it was found that the endorsements extending the validity for this period was forged. Proceedings were drawn against them and the Addl. Collector of Central Excise demanded a duty of Rs. 3, 55, 440.63 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh.2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, learned Advocate, submitted that there is no dispute that during the year 1986-87 the appellants had a provisional Registration Certificate and that they were availing of the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. He submitted that in terms of Proviso (b) under para 4 of the said notification, if an assessee was availing of the benefit of small scale ...
Tag this Judgment!