Delhi Court January 2000 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Kaushal Plastics and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)1003; 85(2000)DLT558; 2000(54)DRJ73
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,70,530.95 filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants, defendant No. 1 a partnership firm and defendants No. 2 to 5 its partners. It is alleged that plaintiff had granted financial assistance to the defendants in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for working capital. This was extended to Rs. 75,000/- later and again to Rs. 3,10,000/-. The defendants have executed various documents including Demand Promissory Note dated 10.4.1983 in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- repayable with interest at a minimum rate of 16% per annum with quarterly rests and Agreement of hypothecation dated 10.4.1983 pledging the stock in trade, machinery etc. as security. Defendant No. 2 had also created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed in respect of his property No. 3B, Inder Lok, Old Rohtak Road, Delhi. This facility was availed by the defendants. They had executed revival letters dated 23.2.1986 and 27.3.1986 acknowledging their liability to pay there...
Mtnl Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000IVAD(Delhi)145; AIR2000Delhi208; 84(2000)DLT70; 2000(52)DRJ680
ORDERS.N. Variava, CJ.1. This common Order would cover the above mentioned two Petitions. In these Petitions the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing - First Amendment)Regulation,1999 dated 17th September, 1999 and the Telecommunication Tariff (Fifth Amendment) Order,1999 also dated 17th September, 1999 have been impugned on various grounds. One of the common grounds in both the Petitions, is that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (hereinafter called the Authority) does not have any power to issue any Regulation which affect the rights of individuals under contracts or which seeks to override terms and conditions of licenses issued by the Central Government to various parties.2. It must be mentioned that the tariffs and charges laid down by the Authority are also being questioned on various other grounds. However, all parties have agreed that the question whether the Authority has power, be first decided Parties have agreed that if this Court holds tha...
Hi-rise Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Alpha Woven Labels (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)173; AIR2000Delhi126; 83(2000)DLT586; 2000(52)DRJ588
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,51,071/- against the defendant under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the CPC). On 19th August, 1999, summons on the prescribed form under Order 37 of the CPC for service on the defendant were issued for 1st December, 1999. The defendant was served with the summons on 16th September, 1999, whereby he was informed that he has been summoned to cause appearance to be entered within ten days from the service thereof; in default whereof the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain a decree for the suit amount after the expiration of the said period and that after he enters appearance, the plaintiff would thereafter serve summons for judgment at the hearing of which defendant would be entitled to move the court for leave to defend the suit on merits. In this case, however, instead of entering appearance within the period of ten days on 15.10.1999 defendant filed an application under Order 37, Ru...
Fairfest Media Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)462; 2000(2)ARBLR235(Delhi); 84(2000)DLT774
ORDERC.M. Nayar, J.1. The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners for endorsement/approval for Travel and Tourism Fair 2000 (for short TTF) being organized on the basis of the tender notice issued by Respondent No. 1 and for issuance of a further writ for setting aside the bid dated 22nd April, 1999 settled in favor of Respondent No. 3 for organising India Tourism Week-2000 and for quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Event Manager. 2. The pleas raised in the petition arise out of the tender notice which is filed as Annexure-P17. The said notice reads as follows:- 'TENDER NOTICE MINISTRY OF TOURISMGOVERNMENT OF INDIAINVITES BIDS For appointment of an Event ManagerFor OrganisingIndia International Travel Expo & Mart(IITEM) During 2000, 2001 & 2002 On a No-Cost basis to the Government The parties with proven credentials in the field of organising Tourism related Expositions, interested in bidding f...
A.B.A. Electronics India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT870TriDel
1. On the Stay Application, the ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellants before passing the impugned order by the Commissioner, we have perused the impugned Order-in-Original of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) which shows that notices were sent to the appellants, but they did not put up appearance before him. However, prima facie there is nothing on the record to suggest if any notice was actually received by the appellants and they wilfully or deliberately absented or avoided the appearance before the Commissioner. The impugned order further reveals that the appellants have been burdened with the duty demand with penalty on the ground that they failed to produce necessary documents of having not availed the credit on the raw material imported by them under the Export and Import Policy, but they have produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise Range IV, Gurgaon, of having n...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Heinz India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT543TriDel
1. The respondents herein are manufacturers of chocolate flavoured Complan falling under Chapter Heading 21.08 of the Schedule to the CETA 1985. They filed an application for permission under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for movement of goods to M/s Kemwell Ltd. Bangalore for the purpose of branding and packing in glass jars. The application was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the goods had already attained the essential character of finished goods and were therefore, not semi-finished goods covered under the provisions of Rule 56B. The lower Appellate authority however, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that branding and packing of goods are also processes of manufacture and therefore, the goods cleared in bulk in unbranded condition should be deemed to be semi-finished goods only. He noted that the goods are liable for payment of duty under CET sub-heading 2108.99 only if they bear a brand name. Hence thi...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Samtel (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT752TriDel
1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Display Monitors falling under sub-heading 8471.00 of the Central Excise Tariff and are availing the facility of Modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed the inputs-credit taken by the party on parts of cabinets of Display Monitors on the ground that no proper declaration had been filed by them in respect of such inputs. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the aggrieved party. The Department, aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. I have carefully examined the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and connected records. I have also heard the learned JDR, Shri Y.R.Kilania for the appellant-Revenue and Shri C.D. Banga, learned Consultant for the respondents. I observe that the lower appellate authority...
Bhillai Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC192
1. On a visit to the appellants' factory, the jurisdictional officers found super enamelled coper wire on spools and also packed in containers which were stepped (sic) [stripped] and labelled which wires were not entered in the R.G.I register. The officers, therefore, seized the total quantity of wires valued at Rs. 10,65,957.00. Later, the wire was provisionally released on their filing of a security bond for full value with the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.00 lakh. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the goods were liable to confiscation and that the assessees were liable to penalty in terms of Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. After hearing the assessees, the Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 1,50,000.00 and a penalty of Rs. 50,00000. The present appeal is directed against this order.2. Shri K.K. Anand, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that copper wire on spools was lying in the finishing room pending quality control tests. He submitted ...
M. Tex and D.K. Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC578
1. These two appeals raising a common issue were heard together and are beinj disposed of by this order.2. Appellants are engaged in the process of heat setting and stentering of fabric falling under Chapter 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Such fabrics an supplied to them by their customers. The Department's case is that appellants hac received the said goods under cover of challans from various units of manufacturer: of man made fabrics for conducting the processes of heat setting and stentering or job-work-basis. Since they had cleared the same from their factory without paymen of Central Excise duty and Additional excise duty, such duty was required to be paid by them. Reliance has been placed on Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department's further case is the the said clearances are not covered by any exemption notification relating to jot workers such as Notification No. 214/86. As such, the processes engaged in ...
Assomet Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT500TriDel
1. The benefit of Notification No. 149/86 has been denied to copper sheets and circles manufactured by the assessees herein on the ground that the inputs for manufacture of the sheets was not copper which is prescribed as a permitted input under the proviso to the Notification.The appellants are not present today inspite of notice; hence, we heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. We find that it is an admitted position that the copper sheets and circles are manufactured by the assessees out of copper scrap in admixture with duty paid zinc ingots to the extent of 40%. The appellants relied upon Note 3 to Section XV of the CETA, 1985 which states that an alloy of base metal is to be classified as an alloy of metal which predominates by weight over each of the other metals and submits that since copper is predominant the addition of the zinc to the extent of 40% will not take them out of the coverage of the benefit of Notification 149/86. The contention of the appellants finds s...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »