Delhi Court January 2000 Judgments

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Fykays Engg. P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC495

1. The issue referred to the Larger Bench in this appeal filed by the Revenue (in which the respondents are M/s. Fykays Engg. Pvt. Ltd.), is the classification of the product referred to as mineral insulated thermocouple leads.M/s. Fykays Engg. Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of mineral insulated thermocouple leads which they claimed to be classifiable under sub-heading No. 9033.10 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt.Collector of Central Excise classified the said goods under sub-heading No. 83544.00. There were some earlier decisions wherein a view had been taken that the goods in question, also referred to as compensating cables, were part of pyrometers and that they had specific characteristics rendering them suitable for use only with temperature measuring instruments, for transferring the reference point from the location of the sensor to the gauge for reading out the temperature.When the matter came-up before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), he ordered th...

Shiv Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. All the three OAs filed by the same applicant are being disposed of by this common order.2. The reliefs sought for by the applicant in these OAs are as follows - In OA No. 2221/ 94 the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to hold review DPCs for his promotion and confirmation as Deputy Legal Adviser and Additional Legal Adviser with reference to the dates on which the case of Shri N. Krishnamurthy were considered and that similarly his further promotions to the grades of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Special Secretary and Secretary be reviewed with consequential difference of pay with interest as also the exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. one lakh as compensation. In OA No. 429/95 he has apart from the aforesaid reliefs also sought for payment of arrears of pay with interest. In OA No. 432/95 he has sought a direction to the respondents to hold a review DPC with reference to the promotion of Shri N. Krishnamurthy to the grade of Joint Secretary and Lega...

T.T. Limited Vs. the Industrial Finance Copn. of India Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)146

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner had taken financial assistance from the respondent on various heads. Feeling that the rates of interest charged by the respondent being on the high side, the petitioner wanted to have assistance from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. With that aim in view, the petitioner applied to pre-pay the money due on various heads to the respondent. 2. The respondent accepted the proposal for pre-payment to claim pre-payment premium and took the stand unless the premium, as demanded by the respondent was paid, it cannot comply with the request of the petitioner to have transactions with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The respondent demanded Rs.53,03,252/- being the total premium with reference to the financial assistance on four heads. 3. The writ petition was presented on the 19th of May, 1998 in this Court. On the 21st of May, 1998, this court, issuing the rule, passed the following order:- 'CW. 2797/98 Rule. C.M. 6060/98 Notice for 18th of August, 19...

Roshan Lal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)126; 85(2000)DLT1; 2000(4)SLR575

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Lab. Assistant on 5.2.1974. His services were terminated. He raised industrial disputes against his termination which was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court with the following terms of reference. 'Whether the termination of services of Shri Roshan Lal is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?'2. After adjudication the learned Labour Court passed Award dated 26.5.89 holding termination to be illegal and reinstating the petitioner with 75% of back wages. Operative part of the Award dated 26.5.1989 reads as under:- 20. 'However, considering the circumstances of this case I feel that it would not be equitable to grant cent per cent back wages. The service of the workman was terminated on 20.6.1976 though according to the workman he was refused duty on 21.7.76. A long period has elapsed since then. The workman as seen above has married. It can thereforee b...

Latafat HussaIn Vs. Abdul Jabbar and Another

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)308; 84(2000)DLT838; 2000(53)DRJ772

ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the original plaintiff, for obtaining a decree for declaration to the effect that sale effected by defendant No. 1 who is respondent No.1 before me, Abdul Jabbar, in favor of present respondent No. 2 Ishtiaque Ahmed in respect of property No. 5358 including Barsati situated Kucha Rehman, Balli Maran, Delhi vide sale deed dated 4.4.1972 was incompetent, invalid, ineffective and inoperative qua the appellant with the further prayer that respondent No. 1 was liable to specifically perform contract made with the appellant dated 5.12.1971. From the pleadings of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit in its present form is not maintainable OPD 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction OPP. 3. Whether the defendant No. 1 did not agree to sell the premises to the plaintiff? OPD-1. 4. Whether the agreement is inadmissible in eviden...

Bimla Rani Gupta Vs. S.R. Sachdeva

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIIAD(Delhi)637; 84(2000)DLT171; 2000(53)DRJ388

ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner in the revision petition. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 1.1.93 to 29.2.1996. The plaint was presented in March, 1996. The respondent filed an application, purporting to be under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, stating that there was a Rent Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent on the 3rd of November, 1992 for a period of two years and clause 14 of the document provided for adjudication of disputes by arbitration, and, thereforee, the suit was liable to be stayed and disputed would have to be referred to for arbitration. 2. By order dated 3.2.1997, the trial court dismissed the application holding that the agreement was only for a period of two years and that period expired on the 2nd of November, 1994, and after the expiration of that period, the respondent cannot press into service the clause 14 of the Rent Agreement. The learned Civil Judge...

S.K. Construction Co. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000IIAD(Delhi)660

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This is an execution application claiming interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The relevant portions of Section 31 read as follows : '(7)(a). 'Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, where and insofar as an arbitral award is for the payment of money, the arbitral tribunal may include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. (7)(b). A sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award shall, unless the award otherwise directs, carry interest at the rate of eighteen per centum per annum from the date of the award to the date of payment.' 3. A perusal of the sub-section 7(b) clearly shows that unless the arbitral award directs otherwise the amount awarded is to carry interest at th...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Ram Kishan Saini

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 30.12.1999, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 1769/98 entitled Shri Ram Kishan Saini v. Delhi Vidyut Board (M.C.D.) Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Ram Kishan Saini, had filed a complaint in the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that there was no supply of electricity at his residence from 2.00 p.m. on 22.9.1998 till 25.9.1998. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the electric supply to his residence could be restored only in the evening on 25th September, 1998 and that too after a number of complaints in writing and contacting the senior officers of the appellant. The respondent, in the complaint, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellan...

Escorts Class Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT179TriDel

1. Appellant imported two pieces of Combine Harvesters. It was their intention to develop Combine Harvester to cater to the needs of the Northern Indian market where wheat is grown on dry ground. The reconditioned second hand harvesters, which were imported describing them to be prototype, was not covered by the Import and Export Policy and Procedures 1997-2002. Consequently, Commissioner of Customs by order-in-original No. 3/10-61/98 VA dated 16-10-1998 confiscated the same under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The same were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. A personal penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 was also imposed under section 112(a) of the Act. This order is under challenge.2. New Import and Export Policy of the Central Govt. for the period 1997-2002 was made available to me. Chapter 5 deals with imports.Paragraph 5.1 allowed capital goods, raw materials, intermediates, components, consumables, spares, parts, accessories, instruments and other goods to ...

Best Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT766TriDel

1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Best Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. is whether the diesel generator set is an excisable goods and who is the manufacturer of the impugned diesel generator set.2. Shri C. Govindaswami, learned Consultant, submitted that the impugned generator set is a 380 K.V.A. generating set consisting of engine with radiator, 38 KVA alternator with coupling device and other components, namely, batteries, base frame, fuel tank and control panel; that at site, civil engineering concrete basement is prepared; that base frame is fixed and attached to the bowels of the earth by base foundation bolts and thereafter engine and alternators are fixed by bolting, welding, drilling or punching holes and finally other components parts are bolted, welded and soldered; that 380 K.V.A.diesel generator set which thus comes into existence is not mobile and is an immovable property; that the activity undertaken does not amount to manufacture as per the decision in SAE India L...