Delhi Court September 1999 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1999 Page 12 of about 308 results (0.023 seconds)Lennarts Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 82(1999)DLT661
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. A permanent injunction has been sought for restraining defendant No. 1, Punjab National Bank (P.N.B.) from making any payment to defendant No. 3 (M/s. Elconmet Ltd.) under the L.C. The reason for seeking these injunctions is to be found in the prayer clause itself, inasmuch as it is prayed that restraint orders should be effective 'till such time as the defective material supplied by them (Elconmet) to the plaintiff under the purchase order dated 15.11.1997' is not replaced. The prayer itself, thereforee, succinctly sets out the facts on which the suit is predicated. By way of further adumbration, the plaint sets out that the plaintiff had purchased material from defendant No. 3 for supplying it to the plaintiff's various customers. In para 8 of the plaint, it has been averred that 'defendant No. 3 wrongly mentioned the Lennarts India to be the consignee in respect of the said goods in the G.R. The defendant No. 3 sent the original G.R. directly to the plaintiff wh...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rajco Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1004TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 was available to the excisable goods cleared by the Respondents during the financial year 1992-93 (1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992).2. When the matter was called no one was present on behalf of the Respondents who have requested to decide the appeal on merits, in their letter dated nil received in the Registry on 8-9-1999. We, therefore, heard Shri M.P. Singh, learned JDR, and perused the records. The Assistant Collector, under order dated 28-12-1992 had denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the respondents in view of amendment effected by Notification No. 55/92, dated 31-3-1992. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) rejected the department's case holding that the assessee had not availed of exemption under Clause (a) of Proviso to para 4 of Notification No. 175/86 and availed of only under Clause (b) and therefore, the Notification No. 55/92 which amended Notification No. 175/86 will...
Tag this Judgment!U.K. Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT1009TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by (1) M/s. Atul Fasteners (2) M/s.K.P. Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. ('K.P. Fasteners' for short) (3) M/s. U.K.Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. ('U.K. Machine Tools' for short) and (4) M/s.Kirti Wire Products Pvt. Ltd. (Kirti Wire Products for short), being aggrieved with the common Order-in-Original dated 10-4-1991, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. All the above named units were engaged in the manufacture of self tapping screws classifiable under sub-heading 7318.10, and rivets classifiable under sub-heading 7318.29 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were located in close proximity and had interconnected operations. All of them were separately availing of the benefit of Small Scale Exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, as amended. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 12-7-1989 that all these units were set up by one Shri R.K. Luther, who was the so...
Tag this Judgment!Mercury Confectioners and Allied Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT171TriDel
1. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19-5-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8-7-1996 at 5.00 P.M., officers of the Revenue Department intercepted a truck No. UGL 434 carrying 103 cardboard boxes and 340 plastic bags of biscuits of Mercury brand under the cover of Invoice No. 188, dated 8-7-1996 of M/s. Mercury Confectioners and under Bill No. 279, dated 8-7-1996 of S.N.Enterprises for 38 cardboard boxes and 340 plastic bags of biscuits. On investigation, it was found that, in fact, all the goods were cleared from the factory of appellants and no goods were cleared by M/s. S.N.Enterprises. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for confiscating the goods and for imposing penalty. After adjudication, the goods along with truck were confiscated and the goods were released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. Appellants filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Star Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT173TriDel
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 8-4-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order, the benefit of Modvat credit, as 'capital goods' is allowed on the following items : 2. Ld. JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submits that the items, on which the benefit of Modvat credit is allowed, are not covered under the definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. He submits that the tube well is used for drawing water from earth, which do not come under the definition of capital goods. In respect of other items, he reiterated the grounds of appeal.3. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the issue in respect of capital goods, is now decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (Tribunal), 1999 (32) R.L.T. 379. He submits that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, after considering the scope of cap...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Choudhary Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)74ITD350(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT, Delhi-VI, New Delhi, passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) and relates to the asst. yr. 1992-93.The assessee is an individual. He is a salaried employee and a shareholder in HCL Ltd. He was holding 2,20,542 shares of Rs. 10 each in HCL Ltd., which was a multi-unit company comprising of Computer Division CAD - CAM Division. Peripherals Division. Reprographics Division, Communication Division and Instrumentation Division.3. Hewlett Packard Company Ltd. of USA (hereinafter referred to as HP Co.) evinced interest in entering into a joint venture with HCL Ltd. in respect of computer business only. Under ss. 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, HCL Ltd. submitted a scheme of arrangement to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The scheme, inter alia, provided for : "(a) Transfer of the non-computer business to the new company, namely, HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "HCL : ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Chatrath and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)180; AIR2000Delhi40; 82(1999)DLT33; 1999(51)DRJ521
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20th November, 1998 rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) holding that the suit is barred under Section 347-E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short 'the Act') and that equitable relief for injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is available to the appellant.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4th August, 1987 appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents/defendant from demolishing and/or sealing the whole or any portion of the property bearing No. 1142-1145 Gali No. 9 and 10, Abdul Rehman, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the ground that officers of the respondents/defendant threatened to demolish and/or seal the portion of the building in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no pre-decisional notice was served on appellants. The respondent contested the suit ple...
Tag this Judgment!Sri NaraIn and Another Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)295; 2000CriLJ965; 82(1999)DLT490; 1999(51)DRJ313; ILR1999Delhi444; 1999RLR572
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J.1. In the instant case in our order dated January 13, 1999 we noted that both the appellants, Shri Sri Narain and Smt. Savita, who are husband and wife, were in custody on account of being convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. By the same order we also noted that they have minor children. In such a situation where both the husband and wife are in custody a question arises as to what would happen to their minor children, who may not have any one to look after them in the absence of their incarcerated parents. The question in the context of children being left alone due to incarceration of a single parent was dealt with by one of us in Criminal Misc. (Main) 1642/93 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 2144/93. By the order dated September 6, 1993 in Crl. Misc. (Main) 1642/93 it was observed as follows :- 'In a situation like this, where children of a single parent are left alone due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Singh Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)450; 83(2000)DLT436; 2000(54)DRJ595
ORDERN.G. Nandi, J.1. The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether an Air Force Personnel taking voluntary retirement before completion of the qualifying service in Air Force, would be entitled to the encashment of entire leave balance. 2. The say of the petitioner is that he joined the service of Indian Air Force w.e.f. 27.12.1980 as CLK/CD. Though the term of engagement of the petitioner was for 20 years, he sought voluntary discharge from service after 15 years 8 months and 10 days. The Competent Authority approved his discharge vide No. AIR HQ/40802/1589/-PA-III, dated 9.8.1996 in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Rules, 1969, Chapter-3, Rule 15(2). The petitioner was permitted his dues of gratuity and Pension but the benefit of leave encashment was restricted to 90 days instead of 196 days balance; that the denial of leave encashment of 196 days is discriminatory inasmuch as the respondents are giving benefits of full leave encashment to one set of employees wh...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. Shri Sadhu Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)649; 82(1999)DLT97; 1999(51)DRJ648
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. A petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent on the ground that respondent had not paid the arrears of rent in spite of notice of demand dated 13.12.1977 demanding that the rent had not been paid from 1st January, 1976 at the rate of Rs 9/- per month. The appellant also filed an eviction petition earlier against the respondent on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Same was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the said dismissal by the Addl. Rent Controller, an appeal was filed by the appellant against the said order dated 30.10.1975 before the Rent Control Tribunal, who allowed the appeal and set aside the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller and upheld the ground of non-payment of rent. The Rent control Tribunal held that as the respondent has complied with the order under Section 15(1) passed in the proceedings in the trial court, he was allowed the benefit of Section...
Tag this Judgment!