Delhi Court May 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 12 of about 254 results (0.011 seconds)Maihar Cement, Century Textile and Industries Ltd. Vs. Krishna Gears ( ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)1; AIR2000Delhi362; 2000(54)DRJ364
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.5.1994, passed by Shri G.S. Jugti, Additional District Judge, allowing the application of respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the appellant from encashing the two bank guarantees till the disposal of the main suit. 2. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the application of respondent No.1, holding that the notice invoking the bank guarantee was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bank guarantee and was, thereforee, of no legal effect and inoperative. As per the impugned order, the notice did not disclose as to why the bank guarantee was being invoked. It did not mention the alleged non-supply of material or the resultant loss or the extent thereof Besides, he held that the contract was subsisting and had not been rescinded, in the absence of which the bank guarantee could not be encashed. He also held that responde...
Tag this Judgment!international Airport Authority of India Workers Union Vs. Airport Aut ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000VIAD(Delhi)119; 88(2000)DLT322; 2000(54)DRJ378; 2001(2)RAJ69
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the International Airport Authority of India Workers Union as petitioner No.1 and Mr. Khim Singh, General Secretary, Airport Authority Employees Union as petitioner No. 2. Airport Authority Employees Union and International Airport Authority of India Workers Union referred to as 'Employees Union' and 'Workers Union' had joined hands in an alliance and contested the election as Airport Authority Employees Union (AAEU) using the symbol 'sun' of the workers union. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of the agreement between the Employees Union and the Workers Union i.e. the partners of the alliance, the post of the President was to be held by the President of Employees Union and that of the Secretary by the Secretary of the Workers Union. During the All India Conference, Mr. S.R. Santhanam and Mr. Khim Singh were elected the President and General Secretary of the AAEU. 3. From the correspondence placed on reco...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Water Meters Mft. Co. and ors. Vs. Delhi Jal Board and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ309
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. The three petitioners in this petition, are manufacturers of domestic water meters. They were the bidders in response to a notice inviting tenders, dated 13.9.1999. issued by the respondent No. 1, Delhi Jal Board, for supply of 1,20,000 15 mm size domestic water meters. The notice inviting tenders (NIT) required submission of technical and price bids. Petitioners are aggrieved by non-acceptance of their technical bids, resulting in the price bids not being considered.2. Petitioners, thereforee, seek appropriate writ or direction that decision making process of respondent No. 1 to exclude the petitioner from grant of orders and placing the orders with respondent No. 3, the successful bidder, whose technical bid was found acceptable, was illegal and contrary to law and public interest. Petitioners urge that respondent No. 1 was contemplating to award the contract to respondent No. 3 at a price which was three times higher than the prices quoted by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. J.S. Continental Ltd., and Another Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(54)DRJ552
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioners M/s. J.S. Continental Ltd. & Ors., in Civil Writ Petition No. 7602/99 are seeking another inter alias a direction to the respondents not to engage more than 6750 truck tankers pursuant to the tender. Further, it is prayed that respondents be directed to engage all the truck tankers at the same rate. Priority is also claimed in loading and unloading of the truck tankers of the petitioners. 2. Capt. Vijay Malik & Others, petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 359/2000, are also seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to accept the tenders of all the bidders, starting from the lowest till 6750 number of truck tankers are taken on hire and not to accept any tender beyond the number of 6750 truck tankers. A direction is also sought that the existing tenderers should not be given priority overlooking the claims of tenderers who have offered to fabricate and provide tankers at lower rates. Alternatively, a direction is sought that respondents 2 to 4...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ishar Alloys Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC657
1. The Bench of Two Members after doubting the correctness of Tribunal decision in the case of Vidyut Green Bank Castbasalt Pvt. Ltd. v.Collector of Customs, reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal) and in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Keshari Steels, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 768 (Tribunal) referred the following question of law to the Larger Bench: "In the facts and circumstances of the case whether goods, i.e. High Alumina Slide Gate Refractory Plates imported by the party are classifiable under heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff as per the Department or under heading 6902.20 of Customs Tariff as claimed by the party." 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellants.Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned Advocate assisted the Court on behalf of the appellants.3. The appellants made an import of the goods described as 'Slide Gate Refractories' Model Number 6304/24 (High Alumina Slide Gate Refractories Plate Type 'SANIT' 0654 T SV' Model Number 630/24)...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Maa Sarda Rail Nirman (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT366TriDel
1. This is an application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), impugned in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. On a perusal of the application, I find that, though the merits of the case have been discussed by the applicants, no reason whatsoever has been stated in support of the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order. It is not discernible as to how the Department will be prejudiced, or otherwise effected, by the operation of the impugned order.2. I have heard learned JDR for the applicants. He submits that, unless the operation of the impugned order is stayed, the ratio of that order will be followed by all authorities below the lower appellate authority, in which event the interests of the Revenue will be effected. This argument is very much missing in the application before me. Any fact which is sought to be pleaded in support of an application should necessarily be stated in that application or at least in any affidavit fi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamna Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT301TriDel
1. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri G. Shiv Das, ld. Counsel submits that M/s. Jamna Auto Industries had two Divisions. In one division Stabiliser bars falling under Chapter Heading 87.08 were being manufactured and in the other division Leaf springs falling under Chapter Heading 73.20 were being manufactured. M/s. Jamna Auto Industries sold the Stabiliser Bar Division as such to a Joint Venture Company, Jamna NHK Allevard Suspension Components. The Department issued SCN that there is removal of capital goods, raw materials etc.when the Stabiliser Bar Division was sold to Jamna NHK and that accordingly, the applicants should have paid duty at the time of the alleged removal.2. Ld. Counsel submitted that Rules 57F(3) and 57S(1)(ii) contemplate payment of duty if removal of inputs/capital goods takes place. He submits that removal under these two Rules is governed by Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that in the present case, there was no removal as contemplate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Schenck Avery Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT582TriDel
1. In these 5 appeals arising out of a common order-in-appeal Nos. 6 to 10/CE/DLH/2000, dated 16-5-2000 the issue involved is whether the Notional Interest earned on advances received by the respondents from their customers for execution of the orders is to be included in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured by them.2. We heard Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri Rakesh Roshan, Vice President of the respondent M/s. Schenck Avery Ltd. The Asstt. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of duty against the respondents by including the interest on the advances received from customers in the assessable value. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of VST Industries v. CCE, Hyderabad, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 395 (S.C.). In this case it was held that the commercial consideration for interpreting interest free deposit scheme was to cover the risk of credit sales extended to th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Swaraj Mazda Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT721TriDel
1. The Respondent had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 1,74,360/- during April and May, 1995 on the strength of invoices on which the words 'duplicate for transporter' were rubber stamped instead of having been preprinted. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner allowed the credit by following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited. The Department preferred appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter upheld the order of the lower authority by following the Tribunal's decision in Larsen & Toubro Limited 1994 (72) E.L.T. 948 (T). Hence the present appeal by the Department.2. I have carefully examined the orders of both the lower authorities and the connected records. I have also heard learned JDR, Shri A.K.Jain for the appellant and Shri V. Kumar, Senior Manager of the Respondent Company.3. Learned JDR has reiterated the grounds of the appeal. The main ground stated by "the appellant is o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC794
1. In this reference to the Larger Bench, the issue for consideration is that in a case where the ownership of the excisable goods remained with the manufacturer upto the place of the buyer from where the said goods were delivered to the buyer, what would be the "place of removal" for the purpose of Clause (iii) of Section 4(4)(b) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').In Escorts J.C.B. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi -1999 (35) RLT 9 (CEGAT), a bench of this Tribunal had taken a view that when the manufacturer continued to remain the owner of the goods till the goods reached the buyer's destination, the place of removal for the purpose of Section 4(4)(b)(iii) of the Act will be the buyer's premises.It was an admitted position that M/s. Escorts had insured the goods on their account when they were transported to the place of their buyers.Insurance policy was in their name. In case of loss in transit, the Insurance Company was to re-im...
Tag this Judgment!