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.
Subhash Batra Vs. Shri Chamman Lal and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-13-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)86; 82(1999)DLT385
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the tenant, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The order of deposit of rent Under Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on 28th August,1991 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit rent @ Rs. 300/- per month under Section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Ultimately, the Additional Rent Controller on 22nd April, 1999, on the material placed on record held that pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties it was agreed that w.e.f. 7th August, 1988 rent @ Rs. 600/- per month was to be paid by respondent-tenant. That document was filed in the Court of Additional Rent Controller as R-1. The petitioner did not deny the execution of that document nor deny the contents thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of East India C. Mfg. v. S.P. Gupta 1985 RLR 292 at...
Paradise Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)(114)ELT941TriDel
1. These are two appeals involving the same issue of rejection of refund claim on account of unjust enrichment and as such are being disposed of by one common order.2. Shri P.S. Bedi, learned Consultant, submitted that the adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellants on the ground of unjust enrichment without first deciding that whether refund is admissible or not to the appellants. He emphasised that first the Asstt. Commissioner has to decide the question of admissibility of refund claim under the law and then only the question of unjust enrichment has to be looked into and if there is no unjust enrichment the amount of duty claimed as refund will be given to the appellants and if there is an unjust enrichment the said amount will be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Government cannot retain money of refund claim with them. He finally mentioned that number of similar orders have been remanded to the Asstt. Commissioner for re-adjudication.3. ...
VipIn Chowdhary Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT409TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the adjudication order-in-original dated 4-6-1998 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under.2. On receipt of secret information, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gorkhpur along with two independent witnesses intercepted truck No. DL-IG-A-2085 on 18-2-1997 at 3.45 pm at Chandaul Bazar, District Varanasi. After disclosing their identity, they apprised the driver of the truck of their intention to take search. The driver, on interrogation, disclosed his name as Sattan Rai, R/o Vill.Piprahi, P.O. Ratanpur. Similarly, the cleaner disclosed his name as Navi Lal Mehta, r/o Vill. Bhagvanpur, Distt. Supaul, Bihar. Another occupant of the truck, revealed his name as Raju Yadav. All the three were thoroughly interrogated and the truck was taken to the office of the DRI, Va...
Dhar Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT142TriDel
1. Modvat credit of Rs. 67,31,632/- taken by the appellants herein (who are manufacturers of textiles falling under Chapter Headings 52, 50, 60, 61 and 63), prior to 23-7-1996, has been disallowed on the ground that such credit had been taken prior to installation of the goods in the factory and commencement of production, in contravention of Rule 57Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The Adjudicating authority has however, held that credit would become available for utilisation after installation of machinery and commencement of production. The above mentioned amount includes an amount of Rs. 8,17,006/- taken on goods like Insulated wires and cables, Air-Conditioners, Electric Motors, Electric Apparatus, Parts of Cooling tower and Steel tanks and vessels, which has been disallowed totally i.e. this credit has been held to be inadmissible even after commencement of production, reason being that the items`above mentioned do not qualify as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q. A fur...
Xpro India Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT776TriDel
1. The appellants imported Extrusion Sheet Manufacturing Equipment for production of multiplier plastic sheets. The goods were transferred from one division of the appellants to another of the same company on high sea sales basis. While assessing the goods, 3% of the value was loaded to the invoice value and duty charged on the basis that the commission charges are liable to be included in the assessable value in respect of goods which are sold on high sea sales basis. In appeal, they sought refund of the duty paid on the 3% which was loaded to the value. The refund application was rejected by the A.C. However, in appeal, it was held that the addition of 3% may be high and it could be reduced to 2% of the CIF value. In the present appeal, it has been contended that only US $ 500 i.e. Rs. 18,350/-had been charged "towards re-imbursement of actual documentation and communication expenses" as is evident from their letter dated 27-12-1996. The appellants have contended that there was no j...
Modi Tyre Factory Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)(116)ELT132TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad, by which Modvat credit on 'Pressure Switches, Pumps & Nuts, Spares of Fans and Regulators and Pressure Gauges' had been disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) reversing the order of the Asstt.Commissioner.2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants Shri K. Srinivas submits that the items are parts of boilers. The Department itself has accepted this position in paragraph 2 of the authorisation given by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut under Sub-section (2) of Section 35E. The said authorisation refers to the items as 'spare parts of boilers'. Ld.Counsel then refers me to the Tribunal order in the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Triveni Engineering Works [1997 (96) E.L.T.655 (Tribunal)], in which it was noted that Boiler is an integral part of plant and machinery used in the manufacture of sugar. Since boiler is already held to be an ...
Frigarifico Allana Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT901TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the benefit of Notification No. 217/86 is available to the inputs used in the manufacture of finished product which is exported under bond.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. They have, in their letter dated 4-9-1999, requested to decide the matter on merits. We, therefore, heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR and perused the records. Shri R.D. Negi submitted that as per the provisions of Notification No. 217/86, the benefit of notification is not available, if the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished product which are exempt from payment of duty of excise leviable thereon or chargeable to nil rate of duty. He submitted that as the final goods were exported under bond, no duty was paid by the appellants as such the proviso becomes applicable and benefit of notification cannot be extended.3. We have considered the submissions of the learned D.R. and perused the records. I...
Shamim Ahmed Vs. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Seth
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)169; 82(1999)DLT219; (2000)124PLR39
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit has been filed under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest from the date of institution of the present proceedings till the realisation thereof at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. The plaint discloses that the Defendant has claimed to be the owner of land in village Begampur, New Delhi and on this representation had entered into an Agreement for sale of a portion thereof at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per sq. yds. In furtherance of this Agreement a sum of Rs. 2,00.000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in cash on 4.12.1994 together with a further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 4.4.1995 as well as another sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The averments in the plaint are, thereforee, that a total sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- had been paid. Upon verification it was learnt that the title of the Defendant in respect of the suit property was defective and accordingly in part discharge of his liability two che...
Amar Agencies Vs. A. P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 2000IAD(Delhi)197; 82(1999)DLT76
Manmohan Sarin, J.1. This is an application under Order XII, Rule 6, CPC for passing a decree of possession on admissions. The plaintiff's case is that by a license deed dated 28.9.1979, the defendant was permitted to use an area admeasuring 2600 sq. ft. in premises No. 2212, ground floor, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, for the business of sale of clothes. The license terms was for 10 years extendable on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed. As per the terms of the license deed, the plaintiff was to receive 2% commission on retail sales and 1.5% commission on wholesale sales and for export sales. Besides, the minimum commission was fixed at Rs. 12,000 /- per month and the maximum commission was fixed at Rs. 21,000/- per month. 2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff replying on the license deed and correspondence with the defendant and in particular letters written by the defendant to the MCD with regard to the Municipal assessment, urges that these conclusively show that th...
Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Subhash Kapoor and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1999
Reported in: 1999VIAD(Delhi)401
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. The present appeal arises out of order dated 3.4.1999 passed by Additional District Judge in Suit No. M-148/1998. The respondent filed the aforementioned suit seeking for a decree for eviction. In the said suit issues were framed on 8.5.1998 and the suit was directed to be listed on 26.8.1998 for recording evidence of the plaintiff. On 26.8.1998 suit was ordered to be proceeded ex parte as against the defendants and was listed on 14.9.1998. However, on that date also no steps were taken by the defendants. Subsequent thereto an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed on 13.10.1998 and thereafter the trial court decreed the suit on 13.11.1998. The defendants thereafter filed an application under Order 7 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside ex parte judgment-decree dated 13.11.1998 . In the said application, a copy of which is placed on record, it was stated by the defendants that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »