Delhi Court September 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.
Roshan Lal Vs. Shri Manohar Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)494; AIR2000Delhi31; 82(1999)DLT426; 1999(51)DRJ355; (2000)124PLR1
ORDERVikramjit Sen, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 12,20,000/- under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the plaint it has been averred that on 16.12.1996 an Agreement was entered into between the parties for the purchase of WZ 431 Sri Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-; and thereupon Earnest Money of Rs. 3,00,000/- was handed over by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The Defendant had covenanted to handover possession of the property on the execution of a Power of Attorney on 16.3.1996 (palpably this is a mistake and should read as 16.3.1997) on the receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 27,00,000/-. This Agreement further witnessed that if the Defendant fails to perform his obligations then he would be liable to pay double the amount of Earnest Money. Thereafter a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 27.12.1996 and this payment was acknowledged on the same...
Frontline Enterprises Vs. M/S. Chelsa Products
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)281
ORDERMukul Mudgal, J. 1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in Court today when the matter was called out. 2. This is a petition on behalf of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for setting aside the impugned Award dated 3rd November, 1997 which is passed by the respondent No. 2 in favor of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner. The Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to Clause 23 of the Agreement dated 26.7.95 between the petitioner and the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that no reasons have been given in the impugned Award dated 3.11.1997. 4. In fact the award reads as follows: 'I, award a sum of Rs. 7,13,183.32/- (Rs. Seven lakhs thirteen thousand one hundred Eighty three and thirty two paise only) as price of the goods and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) as damages to M/s. Chelsa Products against M/s. Frontline Enterprises with future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date this award...
S.S. Jetley Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)741; 81(1999)DLT681; 2000(52)DRJ330
Mohd. Shamim, J.1. Shri Suresh Mehta, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an arbitrator. He filed his award before this Court dated August 21, 1996. The same was registered as Suit No. 2151-A of 1996. Notices were issued to both the parties in the said suit with regard to the filing of the award. The petitioner herein did to prefer any objections against the said award while the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed objections against the same vide I.A. No. 1149/97. 2. It has been submitted for and on behalf of the objector that the learned arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims raised by the petitioner as the same were hopelessly barred by time. This instead of making an award in favor of the petitioner with regard to the said claims the same should have been rejected. The work in question was complete in August, 1989 whereas the arbitration was invoked vide letter dated May, 16, 1994. It is thus obvious that the claims wer...
Bihari Lal and anr. Vs. Mukesh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-1999
Reported in: 1999VAD(Delhi)858; 82(1999)DLT66; 2000(52)DRJ33; 1999RLR526
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 1.2.1998, the landlord/petitioner has filed this revision petition. The case set out by the petitioner was that the previous owner of the property in question served a notice dated 12.8.1969 which was duly served on the tenant Net Ram. The present petitioner Along with his wife purchased the property somewhere in 1987. In 1996 eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed. The petition was filed on 4.5.1996, which was marked to the Addl. Rent Controller on 6.5.1998. These dates are important as on 6.5.1996 the petitioner filed the AD card of the notice dated 12.8.1969 and reply to said notice sent by Net Ram. The leave to defend application was filed by Smt. Champa Devi, widow of Net Ram. That application was dismissed on 16.9.1996. An order of eviction was passed against Champa Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Champa Devi filed a Civil Revision Petition in the Hi...
Kushal Confectionery and Pharma Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT271TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Kushal Confectionery & Pharma Ltd., the issue for our consideration is whether the products "Huny Herb", "Churyum drops" and "Tazza" were ayurvedic medicaments falling under sub-heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff or were classifiable under sub-heading No. 1704.90 as "Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa other than chewing gum". During the period October, 1989 to March, 1990, the appellants had cleared these three products at nil rate of duty under sub-heading No. 3003.30. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jammu, after taking note of the report of the Chemical Examiner and the nature of the products, their use and marketability held that these products did not satisfy the definition of ayurvedic medicament and were items of sugar confectionery and he confirmed the demand of Rs. 66,592.73. On appeal, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh, after a detailed discussion of the product in dis...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Srf Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT169TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad.Whether above four items are eligible Capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q to avail Modvat credit is an issue to be considered in this case.The Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the party observed that these are essential for production of the goods and is covered by the term Capital goods and, accordingly, the Modvat is admissible on them. Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the department has come before the Tribunal by way of this appeal.3. This matter has been adjourned for several times awaiting the decision of the Larger Bench. Both sides submit that decision of the Larger Bench is out in the case Jawahar Mills Ltd., reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47.4. Shri J.M. Sharma appearing for the respondents submits that though serial No. 1 and 4 are nothing but control panel is directly covered by the Larger Be...
Gujarat Polycrete Private Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)LC290Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether the products manufactured by the Appellants are classifiable under sub-heading 3922.90 as claimed by them or under sub-heading 6807.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as held by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order dated 13-4-1989.2. M/s. Gujarat Polycrate Private Limited manufacture Sanitary ware articles, for example, bath tubs, shower trays, counter wash basins, water closets, flush tanks and bathroom accessories. They filed a classification list No. 6/86 claiming the classification under sub-heading 3922.90, which was approved by the Assistant Collector.However, on appeal by the Department, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original and classified the products under sub-heading 6807.00 holding that products in question are made out of raw materials like silica, quartz, dolomite with stone dust and these are mixed with polyethylene resin; that the essential character flows from the raw materials ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Adarsh Steel Re-rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT334TriDel
1. These are two appeals -one filed by the Revenue against the Collector (Appeals) order dated 2-4-1987 allowing the benefit of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 and the second appeal is filed by M/s. Adarsh Steel Re-Rolling Mills against the order of the Additional Collector confirming the demand of Central Excise duty.2. We have heard Shri M.P. Singh, Id. D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri R. Santhanam, Id. Advocate on behalf of the assessee.3. The assessee is manufacturing iron & steel bars, which are classifiable under tariff heading 72.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act at the relevant time out of waste and scrap falling under heading 72.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.They had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 208/83 in their two classification lists filed in 1986. A show cause notice was issued to them for denying the benefit of notification as waste and scrap of iron and steel was not specified as an input for final prod...
Borg Instrumentation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(115)ELT693TriDel
1. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-5-1993. In the Order-in-Appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the S.S.I. Registration Certificate, issued by the Director of Industries, is applicable from the date of production, as mentioned in the said certificate.2. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the SSI unit is entitled to exemption from the date of application for registration as SSI unit. He submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Melvin Powell Vanaspati & Engineering Industries v. C.C.E., Calcuttta-I reported in 1999 (32) RLT 801 (CEGAT) held that the SSI units are entitled for exemption from the date of application for registration with the Department of Industries. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed.4. In this case, the appellants are claiming the exemption from the date of production of the goods and the authorities below granted the exemption, as SSI Unit, from the date of i...
Cc Vs. R.C. Fabrics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)(90)LC257Tri(Delhi)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs, Delhi who has dropped the proceedings emanating from show cause notice dated 18.1.1991 proposing confiscation of seized goods i.e. 31061 mtrs.of 100% polyester fabrics for contravention of the provisions of Import Licencing and proposing imposition of penalty on the ground that an earlier adjudication order dated 15.1.1991 in respect of the same consignment had already been passed and, therefore, another adjudication order in respect of the same consignment was not permissible in law.2. The brief facts are that the respondents herein filed a Bill of Entry No. 151684 dated 16.8.1990 for clearance of goods declared as 100% polyester fabrics (denier 150 to 300) 150 cms. without payment of duty, against an advance Licence dated 31.1.1990-(DEEC Book No. 008053 dated 31.1.1990). Examination of the goods on 3.9.1990 revealed an excess of 843.35 mtrs. in the consignment over and above the quantity declared in the Bill of En...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »