Delhi Court November 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 20 of about 261 results (0.011 seconds)Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. Arvind Exports (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(72)ECC773
1. The Advocates for the respondents had preliminary objections on the admissibility of the subject appeals filed by the Revenue. These were: (i) All appeals are filed against remarks and observations made in the note sheets in different office files. There is no decision or order passed by a Collector in these cases as an adjudicating authority and he relied on CC v. Metro Exporters P. Ltd. . (ii) Appeals are filed and signed by Assistant Collector of Customs based on the letter of Authority from the Collector, who has no power to delegate under Section 129D. The counsels relied upon. Collector v. MM Rubber , Collector v. Lakshmi & Co. 1999 (34) RLT 558,Collector v. Indian Oil Corporation , Collector v. Kesharwani Zarda Bhandar . (iii) The CBEC has passed common review order under Section 129-D(i) i.e. Order No. 87R to 88R dated 1st October, 1983 passed by Sh. J. Dutta. This is invalid as facts of Arvind Exports & Pacific Exports are totally different. There was no revalidati...
Tag this Judgment!Jalani Enterprises Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(74)ECC373
1. This stay application arises out of appeal bearing No. E/2541/2000-D filed by the appellants wherein they have challenged the validity of the Order-in-Original of the Commissioner confirming the duty demand of Rs. 22,78,788 and imposing penalty of Rs. 19,34,240 and of Rs. 5,00,000 on them. The appellants in the stay application have prayed for the total waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and the penalty amounts.2. While arguing the stay application the learned Counsel has contended that the classification dispute between the party is already subjudice as the appellants have filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the classification of their product Jalani brand "Jaljira" and "Jiron Churn" under Sub-heading 2108.91 and 2108.99 of the CETA and while passing the impugned order in appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) had followed that order of classification and confirmed the duty and penalty amounts on them. According to the counsel, the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Charkha Detergents and Soap Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(128)ELT140TriDel
1. This is an application filed by M/s. Charkha Detergents & Soap Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for waiver of predeposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,64,471/- confirmed under the impugned order.2. Shri M. Ganeshan, learned Advocate, submitted that the applicants manufacture Washing Powder, Detergent cake etc. which is being sold by them under the brand name 'Farishta'; that the brand name 'Farishta' was registered in 1977 with trade mark authorities in the name of M/s.Charkha Soap Mills; that under a Deed of Assignment of Trade Mark Charkha Soap Mills has assigned the brand Charkha on 16-8-1993 to the applicants for exclusive use in certain territorial areas; that by another Deed of Assignment, Charkha Soap Mills assigned the exclusive right and benefit of registered trade mark 'Farishta' along with goodwill of the business to the applicants; that the Jt. Registrar of Trade Mark had assigned the trade mark to them w.e.f. 16-8-1993 under certificate dated 14-6-1995; that the D...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIAD(Delhi)666; 90(2001)DLT104
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present application under Order IX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on behalf of the Plaintiff. The suit was dismissed in default on 31.7.2000 because of the non-representation of the Plaintiff. While dismissing the suit in default I observed that the Plaintiff had admittedly executed four Sale Deeds in favor of the Defendants, who are her son, daughter-in-law and Grandson for the sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-, through banking channels. On the previous date of hearing, previous to when the suit was dismissed i.e. on 11.7.2000, the case was adjourned so as to enable the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff to obtain instructions on whether the Plaintiff would appear before the Court. This order had been necessitated because of the Defendants' assertion that the Plaintiff was now residing with the elder brother of Defendant No.1 and her signatures had not been obtained on the Plaint with her consent and complete knowledge. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kaushalaya Chawla Vs. Shri Ashok Taneja and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)135; 90(2001)DLT335
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J.1. This suit for Partition and Rendition of Accounts has been pending for almost three decades. Fifteen years ago, on 18.11.1985, after recording the statement of Shri Gokul Chand Taneja, Defendant No.4, Messrs Taneja Spin Pvt. Ltd. was restrained from 'recovering the moneys which are receivable from the Jammu & Kashmir Government.' Taneja Skin Pvt. Ltd. is not a party in the Plaint, but has filed this application Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 25.5.2000, for recalling and vacating the aforementioned orders. It is Shri Gokul Chand Taneja who has filed the supporting affidavit. It was also candidly admitted by Shri J.N. Aggarwal that Taneja Skip Pvt. Ltd. was fully aware of the said orders at the time when they were passed. It is his contention however, that the reliefs that were contemplated in the suit were in respect of Hindustan Trading Co. and Taneja Trading Co. and not the applicant Company. The order had not been remonstrated against e...
Tag this Judgment!Yotsana Arti Vs. Prem Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1227; 88(2000)DLT482; 2000(57)DRJ470
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. By this application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), 2nd and 3rd defendants are seeking vacation of the interim order dated 12.6.1998, whereby the defendants were restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession in any manner with the premises No. D-125, Anand Niketan, Moti Bagh-II, New Delhi (for short 'the suit property'). 2. Facts in brief are: that on 22.9.1997, plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging that 2nd defendant-Ms. Rachna Sethi, was allotted the plot of land measuring 262.83 sq. yds. by DDA, through registered sub-lease in her name. On 5.3.1974, she executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favor of 1st defendant-Prem Singh, registered in the office of sub-Registrar, as document No. 1449 in Additional Book No.4 volume 285 on pages 9-10 vesting him with powers in respect of the suit property, including the power to take possession, to manage, supervise and cont...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. S.A. Brothers and Co. and Another Vs. M/S. John Bartholomow and S ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001IAD(Delhi)81; 88(2000)DLT425; 2000(56)DRJ685; 2001RLR134
ORDERKhan, J.1. Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit against petitioners (defendants) for recovery of Rs. 99,900/-. During its pendency petitioners filed an application under Order 25 Rule 1 CPC to ask security for costs from respondent No.1. Trial court dismissed this vide impugned order dated 31st January, 1991 on the ground that petitioners had admitted respondent No.1's part claim of Rs. 15,178.35 and no counter claim was filed them for remaining amount. 2. Petitioners feel aggrieved and have filed this revision to challenge the impugned order on the ground that it disregarded terms of proviso to Order 25(1) CPC. 3. Petitioners' case is that trial court was bound to pass the order asking respondent No.1 security for costs under provisions of the relevant proviso which were mandatory in nature. It is submitted that court was only required to see whether requirements of this provision, viz., (i) whether plaintiff was residing outside India and (ii) whether he did not possess suff...
Tag this Judgment!The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S Industrial Text ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ144
ORDERVikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Defendants had filed two applications for the passing of a decree under Order XXIII Rule 3, both of which were dismissed on 19.8.1999. On that date there was no representation on their behalf and I was persuaded to reject the applications also for the reason that they were unilateral actions of the Defendants/Applicants. Dates of Trial had already been fixed and evidence was accordingly led by the Plaintiff on 7.12.1999; on the previous date i.e. 6.12.1999, the matter had been adjourned on the request of the Plaintiff. The present application was filed by the Defendants on 7.12.1999.I.A. No. 12353/1999.2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condoning the delay in filing the accompanying application for Review (I.A. 12340/1999.) The reason ascribed by the Defendants/Applicants for not being present on 19.8.1999 is that when they appeared before Court on 5.4.1999 they in advertently and due to bone fide mistake' did not note the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Kewal Kishan Khanna and ors. Vs. Chameli Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(55)DRJ806
S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. The plaintiffs in the suit have prayed for grant of permanent injunction against the clcicndants, their agents and servants etc. restraining them from causing any interference with the plaintiffs, possession of the half portion of the properly No. 2626, Ward No. 16, Khasra No. 245, M Block, Naiwala, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 111 sq. yards of the share of Bhola Ram Jain (for short the Suit Property) and for mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to remove her goods from the suit premises and for damages.2. It is alleged that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from 1st defendant vide three separate sale deeds dated 3rd September, 1997; that apart from conveying the title held by the 1st defendant she had also handed over the possession of the suit property, the proprietary possession of one shop on the ground floor, which was under the tenancy of Sh. Ram Lal Ashok Kumar; it is alleged that originally the entire property 2626/XVI/M me...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT615TriDel
1. Issues raised in all these appeals are identical. It is whether the ship's demurrage charges which were actually incurred by oil companies were includible in the assessable value of petroleum crude oil and other petroleum products like motor spirit, high speed diesel, superior kerosene oil, furnace oil and aviation turbine fuel. Another issue as to whether the oil companies and their senior officials were guilty of suppression of payment of ship's demurrage charges with intent to evade duty and consequently liable to penalty under Section 114A or Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) also rises for consideration.2. As stated earlier, all the appellants are Public Sector Undertakings. Aggrieved by the order of adjudication passed by the departmental authority, appeals have been filed before this Tribunal.The appellants thereupon approached Committee of Secretaries for clearance, in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Oil and N...
Tag this Judgment!