Delhi Court August 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 7 of about 321 results (0.021 seconds)Alankar Shipping and Clearing P. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT304TriDel
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who has suspended the Custom House Agent Licence held by the appellants herein, pending enquiry proceedings under Regulation 23 of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 1984 for revokation of their licence and the ground for suspension is the appellants' alleged involvement in evasion of Customs duty running into several crores of Rupees, in collusion with Mumbai based importing firms viz.Montana Valves and Compressors P. Ltd., M/s. Seaking Marine Services and M/s. Fairlon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., importers of assorted engineering cargo from various countries, who had imported consignments of engineering cargo and declared it as "ship stores" meant for Indian Navy, which were cleared without payment of import duty thereon.2. The order is challenged on the ground that it does not spell out any necessity for immediate action the alleged offence of fraudulent import was detected in September, 1997, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Mathur Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT805TriDel
1. The four stay applications have been taken up together as they arise out of the same order. The dispute in this case was that certain goods were clandestinely removed from the premises of M/s. Rajasthan Explosives & Chemicals and were received by another Company where Shri Ganesh Mathur was the Managing Director. The Department, therefore, confirmed the demand of duty on these goods alleged to be clandestinely removed and also imposed penalties on the firm and its employee as well as on Shri Ganesh Mathur. Stay applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties so imposed.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Counsel appears for M/s. Rajasthan Explosives & Chemicals and Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Counsel appears for Shri Ganesh Mathur. It was pointed out by the ld. Counsel for Shri Ganesh Mathur that neither they relied upon documents were supplied to Shri Ganesh Mathur nor was any personal hearing granted to him. He submits that there was total failure of natural justice. Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mawana Sugar Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT775TriDel
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, extending Modvat credit on L.T.Bush Duct, Double Helical pinion, Air Dryer Units, Electric Hoist, Steam turbine, Switch Board Control Panel, S.S. Tubes and Massecuite pumps. The extension of credit on items 1 to 6 above is challenged on the ground that they do not fall within the definition of capital goods as per the Explanation to Rule 57Q. The extension of credit on S.S.Tube has been challenged for the reasons that the respondent herein did not produce any proof of payment of duty thereon. The credit allowed on massecuite pumps is challenged on the ground that there was no declaration for this item in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Tariff.2. We have heard Shri H.K Saran, ld. DR and Shri Bipin Garg, ld.Advocate. Regarding items at S. Nos. 1 to 6, we find that they are in the nature of electrical items used for transmission of power from Alternator Terminal to various ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ganga Singh and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT441TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue is whether the vaccum reservoir, manufactured by M/s. Ganga Singh & Sons, is classifiable under Heading 86.07, as claimed by the department or 7309.00 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, as decided by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the respondents are manufacturing vaccum reservoirs, which are used in railway coaches and as such are required to be classified under Heading 87.07 which covers parts of railways or locomotives. He, further, submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon Note 2 of Chapter 86 to come to the conclusion that the impugned goods in not mentioned in the said Rule. According to him, Note 2 to Chapter 86 mentions only certain parts, which are covered by Heading 86.07 as the word "inter alia" used, is not exhausted. As far as the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is concerned, lea...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Niwas and Others Vs. Smt. Gunmala JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)113; 82(1999)DLT803
ORDERM.K. Sharma, J.1. The present revision petition arises out of the order dated 18th March, 1995 whereby the executing court dismissed the objection of the petitioners/objectors. The respondent No.1 herein obtained a decree for possession in respect of the suit property against the defendant Raj Pal. 2. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed as against which a second appeal was filed in this court which was registered as RSA No.153/1982. This High Court by judgment and order dated 10.11.82 dismissed the appeal in limine. The defendant Raj Pal, however, moved the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court by order dated 14.11.85 directed the decree holder to pay Rs.10,000/ to Sh. Raj Pal for the superstructure that Raj Pal claimed to have constructed in the suit land. The Supreme Court further directed that Raj Pal would handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within six months. Since the defendant failed to hand over the possession of the suit proper...
Tag this Judgment!Dsidc Workers Union (Regd.) Vs. Delhi State Indu.Devp. Corporation (Ds ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)220; 83(2000)DLT26
ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner is a union of the employees of Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'DSIDC'). The present writ petition has been filed by it challenging the decision of the Board of Directors of DSIDC to merge Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as 'DSMDC') with DSIDC. The writ petition contains the following prayers :'Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or order directions as under: (a) Direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to seek appropriate sanction and approval for merging/amalgamating the respondent No. 1 with DSMDC Government Sick Company. (b) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to merge or transfer 78 employees of DSMDC into respondent No. 1. (c) Direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to release any amount of the fund kept apart to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs or any further allocation for the employees of DSMDC. (d) Direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before deciding the me...
Tag this Judgment!Gul. H. Jethani and anr. Vs. Smt. Ravinder Kaur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)635; 81(1999)DLT532
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, inter alia, praying for orders restraining the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, their agents and servants from using the ground floor of G-8, N.D.S.C. Part-II, New Delhi for commercial purpose and for running a Bar-Be-Que business in this flat and for further restraint orders against these Defendants from using the Tandoors in any portion of the ground floor flat including kitchen or balcony. Although orders for ceiling of the property being used by the Defendants was also prayed for in the plaint, ad interim orders were confined to the first two reliefs indicated above. 2. A Local Commissioner Ms. Shalini Kumar was appointed on 14.2.1998. In her report she recorded that she found two big tandoors together with some coal and wood being used for lighting the tandoors, in the open verandah. She was further reported that the size of the tandoors was such that prima facie they could not possibly have...
Tag this Judgment!Mange Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs. Vs. Chhuttan Lal (Deceased) Through ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)758; 81(1999)DLT589; 1999(51)DRJ221
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed against the appellant. Addl. Rent Controller held that appellant committed default in payment of rent and also parted with possession of the demised shop in favor of his son. An order of eviction was passed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Second appeal has been filed by the appellant in this Court aggrieved by the said dismissal of appeal by Rent Control Tribunal.2. Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has not given up right to possession and in the absence of any finding or evidence on record that right to possession has also been surrendered by the appellant, eviction order could not have been passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that case of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Bikramjit Nagrath and ors. Vs. M/S. Ralya Ram Mela Ram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)805; 82(1999)DLT84; 2000(52)DRJ387
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The plaintiffs have moved this application under Order XXXIX, Rule VII read with Section 151, CPC, seeking a direction for defendant Nos. 1 (a) and (b) to deposit the sum of Rs. 38,620.04 paise (Rupees thirtyeight lakhs fifty thousand six hundred twenty and paise four only) together with interest @ 24% per annum being the compensation received from the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of part of the land of the partnership firm which was acquired. The application is moved in the pending suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. 2. Before dealing with the application on merits, the admitted facts may be noted: (i) Defendant No.1 partnership firm M/s. Ralya Ram Mela Ram came into existence in April, 1924. Perpetual lease was granted to the firm in respect of Plot No. 2, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, admeasuring 5665.06 sq.mtrs., on which a double storeyed structure was raised. The partnership firm was registered in September, 1933 a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Mrigank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)865; 81(1999)DLT613
Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Admit LPA Nos. 240/99, 241/99 and 242/99. Rule DB in CW No. 3742/99.2. By this decision, we are disposing of a batch of three appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent and one writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since there was some urgency in these matters, they were taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.3. For the sake of convenience, the respondents in the appeals and the writ petitioners are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners.4. The petitioners are young men who had hoped to get inducted to the 101st Course of the National defense Academy at Khadakwasla (hereinafter referred to as the NDA). They were denied admission even though they had qualified. On enquiries made by them, they were given to understand that the denial of admission was because a large number of candidates who had qualified for the 100th Course (but could not get admission) were inducted to the...
Tag this Judgment!