Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts and anr. Vs. Union of India and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VAD(Delhi)281; 85(2000)DLT801; 2000(53)DRJ556

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. Arguments heard on interim application for ex parte injunction.2. Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts (IGNCA) was set up as a Trust in 1987 by means of Government of India Resolution dated 19.3.1987 with the objectives of promoting arts and culture. In pursuance thereof, a Trust Deed was executed and registered initially by 7 trustees. The number of trustees was increased to 21 later on. Clauses 7, 8, 9, 24 and 25 of the Trust Deed were amended by the trustees in its resolution on 18.5.1995. The same is alleged to have been approved by the Government of India as conveyed on 2.6.1995 by the then Minister for Human Resource Development. Unamended trust provided that a trustee will hold office for a period of 10 years, (2) Member Secretary of the Trust was to be appointed by the Government of India; (3) review of the activities of the Trust were to be undertaken by a Committee to be appointed by the President of India as its Visitor; (4) any amendment of the Trust ...

S.L. Sehgal Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)611; 84(2000)DLT561; I(2000)DMC524; 2000(53)DRJ424

ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 23.8.95 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from 11.10.1987. The order has not been complied till date. The petitioner by filing multiple proceedings has circumvented the said order. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate reads as under :-'Since in this case the marriage between the parties is in dispute. The petitioner filed certain documents to prove that she married to the respondent. She has filed a writing from Pandit Maleshwar Jha who solemnised the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The photo copy of the invitation card has also been placed on record which shows that the marriage took place between the parties on 11.5.85. A letter from the CPWD permittin...

Raymonds Limited Vs. Commissioner of Sales-tax and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)155; 83(2000)DLT373; 2000(52)DRJ364

ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 9th October, 1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales-tax, Delhi in the exercise of powers underSec. 18 of the Delhi Sales-tax Act, 1975. By the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner to provide a security of rupees two crores under the Local Act out of which rupees fifty lacs were to be in form of bank guarantee and rupees twenty lacs under the Central Act out of which rupees five lacs were to be in the form of bank guarantee for continuance of the registration certificate granted in favor of the petitioner under both the Acts.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was registered under the then Bengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi with effect from December 1963 and the Central Sales-tax Act with effect from 1974. With the coming into force of the Delhi Sales-tax Act, 197...

M/S. Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd. Vs. Amod Juneja and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties/parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeals, lie in a narrow compass. In all the above mentioned appeals, the respondents had made deposits (Fixed Deposits) with the appellant. The deposits, so made, by the respondents with the appellant were to carry interest at the agreed rate and after the date of maturity, the same were payable by the appellant to the respondents together with agreed interest. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount of deposits together with agreed rate of interest to the respondents, the respondents filed separate complaints against the appell...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Vasudha Vasanti Dhagamwar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated the 5th November, 1999, passed by District Forum-I in Complaint Case No. 1040/70 entitled Dr. Vasudha Vasanti Dhagamwar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are, that the respondent had obtained mediclaim policy from the appellant w.e.f. 31.1.1996. The respondent developed pain in her back (due to lumber disk lesion) and was hospitalised w.e.f. 5th July, 1996 to 25th July, 1996 at Aashlok Nursing Home, Safderjung Hospital, New Delhi. After her discharge from the hospital, the respondent, on 31.7.1996, preferred a claim for Rs. 15,000/-. The claim, preferred by the respondent, was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated the 8th October, 1996 on the ground that during examination on 29.1.1996, the respondent had n...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rotomac Electricals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT927TriDel

1. The respondents herein manufacture Insulating Varnish classifying it under CET sub-heading 3208.40. It was noticed that they were also clearing Catalyst along with Insulating Varnish but not paying duty on the catalyst when removed from the factory. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 3,44,632/- on the quantity of catalyst removed by the respondents and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon them. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner holding that the value of catalyst which is a bought out item and which is supplied in a separate pack along with insulating varnish, is not includible in the value of insulating varnish for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. Hence this appeal.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR, who relies upon Section Note 2 to Section VI of the CETA, 1985 to support his contention that since both insulating varnish and catalyst fall under Section VI and are complementary to eac...

Abilities India Pistons and Rings Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT430TriDel

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs. 1697.00.2. In this case in the impugned order it was held that Exhaust Fan is not eligible for the MODVAT credit as capital goods under Section 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.4. In this case the issue is whether the Exhaust fan is eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. The contention of the applicant is that Exhaust fans are covered under Heading 84.14 of the CET and only Compressor falling under Heading 84.14 are excluded under Clause "(AA)" on the Explanation to the Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. In view of the fact that the goods falling under Heading 84.14 of the CET except Compressor, are entitled for the benefit of capital goods. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant. Therefore, deposit of whole of the duty demand is waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency...

Shanil Packaging P. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT255TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Shanil Packaging Pvt. Ltd., the issue involved is whether the benefit of Notification No. 132/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 is available to the Lay Flat Tubing and H.M. HDPE bags manufactured by them.2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the Appellants inspite of issue of notice to the Appellants as well as to their Advocate. In fact the notice issued to the appellants has been received back from the postal authorities. We also observe that at the time of earlier hearings on 9-11-1999, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. We, therefore, proceed to take up the appeal for decision in absence of the appellants.3. The learned SDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the appellants manufacture polythelene bags and availed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 130/86; that the Collector, under the impugned order dated 11-1-1994, had confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 50,281...

Chief Engineer/Mech/Coal, Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT71TriDel

1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board imported 20153 MTs of steaming coal in bulk from Indonesia through Vessel 'Maritime Lapis' and filed a Bill of Entry on 10-9-1993 through their Customs House Agent for clearing the same claiming concessional rate of duty for the coal in terms of ad hoc exemption Order No. 72/92, dated 15-9-1992. Since the coal was urgently required by the appellants, their request for release of the consignment after making provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, pending test results, was allowed after the appellants furnished a test bond supported by bank guarantees. Sample of the coal was drawn and sent for test to 3 laboratories viz. National Metallurgical Laboratory (Central Fuel Research Institute; Dhanbad), Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and ITA Labs. P. Ltd., Madras and the test reports showed that the calorific value of the coal was below 60,000 Kcal/Kg. and that it ranged from 5600 Kcal/Kg. to 5930 Kcal/Kg. The adjudicating aut...

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC338

2. The appellants were manufacturing, inter-alia, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), Denatured Spirit, Country Liquor etc. during the relevant period (August 1990 to June 1995). These products were not liable to Central Excise duty. The chief process involved in the manufacture of these liquors was fermentation of molasses. It was carried out thus--molasses was initially mixed with water to achieve the required dilution. It was then mixed with 'compressed yeast' purchased from the market, whereupon fermentation would start (fermentation is the chemical process of breaking down of cane sugar molecules into ethyl alcohol and carbondioxide molecules under the catalytic action of enzymes present in yeast). The liquid mixture containing alcohol in dilute solution, which resulted from complete fermentation of the molasses, was called 'wash'. The 'wash' so obtained was then subjected to distillation to get concentrated alcohol, which was subsequently processed suitably to get the spirit of d...