Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2000 Page 23 of about 265 results (0.016 seconds)Zulfiquar Ali Khan (Dead) Through Lrs and ors. Vs. Straw Products Limi ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ590
ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this order plaintiffs application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for passing a decree of possession is being disposed of. 2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for ejectment and mesne profits against defendant No.1. Plaintiffs along with defendants No. 2 and 3 had leased out the property known as 'Rafat Mahal' bearing No.19, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi to defendant No.1 for a period of ten years w.e.f. 1.6.1979. A registered lease deed was also executed. The rent was agreed to be at Rs.5,500/- per month and in terms of the lease which provided two 10% increase every three years, the rent was increased to Rs.6,050/- w.e.f. 1.6.1982 and then to Rs.6,600/- w.e.f. 1.6.1985. Three notices dated 12.4.1989, 10.5.1989 and 27.5.1989 were sent to vacate on expiry of the lease. A notice terminating the tenancy dated 10.6.1991 requiring to vacate the premises on the expiry of 30.6.1991 was also sent, though it is alleged that it was no...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4448; 2000(56)DRJ715
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition No. 305 of 1999; is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 13.8.1999 whereby he declined to discharge the accused whom he had summoned in exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') by order dated 5.7.1999 during pendency of the trial upon statement of PW-4, Gyassudin. It is the case of the petitioner that during the investigation of the case arising out of the statement of Gyassudin before the Police on 1.7.1997, FIR No. 501/97 came to be registered at Police Station Seelampur under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The statement of Gyassudin dated 1.7.1997 reads as follows: 'Statement of Gayasuddin s/o Shri Abdul Rashid No. A-23, Chauhan Bangar Main Road, Jafrabad Delhi aged 26 years old stated that I along with my family live at the above given address and I do private service for making jacket in the factory of my brother. About 5 years ...
Tag this Judgment!Director General of Income Tax (Admn.), Directorate of Income Tax (Rec ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas233(Delhi); 2000(56)DRJ643
ORDERArijit Pasayat, CJ. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule D.B. with the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal: 2. The only point urged in the present application is that the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the 'AAIFR') was not justified in holding that the petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel for contesting respondents submitted that AAIFR's conclusions are on terra firma. thereforee the only question that needs adjudication is whether the view of the AAIFR was correct. 3. For resolution of the controversy the factual position, which is almost undisputed needs to be noted in brief. The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the 'BIFR') passed an order dated 3rd April 1997 in respect of a petition filed by GTC Industries Ltd. under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (in short the `Act'). Petitioner was n...
Tag this Judgment!Emmanuel Prem Masih and anr. Vs. Delhi Diocesan Trust Association and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2000(56)DRJ479; [2000(87)FLR397]
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. Respondent No. 1, namely, Delhi Diocesan Trust Association herein had filed a suit for, recovery of possession and mesne profits against three defendants which has been decreed by the trial court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8th January, 1996. Suit was filed against three defendants out of which two defendants have filed the instant appeal against the impugned judgment. In the suit filed by respondent No. 1, it was, inter alia, pleaded that the primary function of respondent No. 1 is to hold and own properties etc. and use these for religious and charitable purposes. Appellant No. 1 herein was appointed as the Honorary Catechist Basai Darapur with effect from 1st January, 1976 and as a privilege of his appoint-ment, he was allowed the use of House No. WZ 315, Basai Darapur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') as residence. The property belongs to plaintiff/respondent No. 1. As numerous complaints were received against appellant No.1, ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Forge Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT812TriDel
1. In this appeal tiled by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd. and the issue for our consideration is the classification of the 'base frame for piercing mill gear box motor'. The respondents had classified the same under Heading No. 84.55 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 5-7-1993 alleging that the correct classification was under Heading No. 84.83 of the CET. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise who adjudicated the matter classified the same under Heading No.85.03. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) agreed with the view of the assessee and classified the same under Heading No.84.55.2. The respondents have prayed for decision on merits, the have heard Shri S.N. Singh, SDR, and have gone through the facts on record. It is seen that the base frame was for the gear box and motor manufactured by the respondents and both the gear box and the motor were for the tube rolling mill i.e. piercing mill. We consider that the gear box and moto...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT231TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Godrej Foods Ltd. (Formerly Noble Soya House Ltd.), the matter relates to the classification of the fruit drink marketed under the brand name "Lipton Tree Top" as a ready to serve beverage. The fruit drink was prepared in different fruit flavours - Mango, Apple, Guava and Orange. The appellants had claimed its classification under sub-heading No. 2001.10 of the Central Excise Tairff as fruit juice. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal was of the view that the correct classfication of the fruit drinks in question was under sub-heading No. 2202.90 of the said Tariff as non-alcoholic beverages. On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore noted that the appellants themselves had called their product as a ready to serve beverage; the percentage of fruit juice was less than 25% in the product while for being treated as a fruit juice according to the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the fruit juice percentage should have been not less tha...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT172TriDel
2. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise had disallowed Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 72,336/- taken by the appellants on lubricants, caustic soda and organic surface-active agents during December 1995 to Jan. 1996. He had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. In separate proceedings, the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 48,737.37 taken by the party on the said goods during March-April 1996 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on them. The aggrieved party preferred separate appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the orders of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeals and upheld the orders of adjudication. Hence the present two appeals before the Tribunal.3. Examined the records. Heard both sides. The aforesaid Modvat credits were disallowed by the lower authorities on the ground that the goods in question were not "inputs' within the meaning of this term under Rule 57A o...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ice Cream (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT89TriDel
Order-in-Adjudication. Accordingly, both the appeals are taken up and disposed of under this common Order-in-Appeal.2. M/s. Milk Food Ltd. is a Public Ltd. Company in existence from 1974 and is engaged in the manufacture of goods like skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder, infant milk powder, pure ghee etc. The other appellant M/s. J. Ice Creams Pvt. Ltd. is a Company incorporated in 1980 under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of manufacturing ice creams. At the time M/s. J. Ice Creams started the manufacture of ice cream, that product was exempt from Central Excise Duty. In 1-6-1981 M/s. J. Ice Creams got into an agreement with M/s.Milk Food Ltd. for manufacture and supply of ice cream, according to the specifications of the buyer. The present proceedings started with the issue of show-cause notice dated 9-8-1995. This notice proposed to demand duty from both the appellants, treating both the units as related to each other and also alleging that M/s. J. Ice Creams was a...
Tag this Judgment!Swastik Formulations (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT77TriDel
1. The adjudicating authority had disallowed Modvat credit taken by the applicants to the extent of Rs. 3,41,587.47 for the period June 1993 to March 1994 and Rs. 28,942.00 for the month of June 1994, on the ground of improper declaration. The authority also imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000.00 on the party under Rule 173Q. The appeal filed by the aggrieved party against the order of adjudication was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is presently under challenge before the Tribunal. The present application is for waiver of pre-deposit of the aforesaid amounts for purposes of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.2. Carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities and connected records. Heard ld. Advocate, Shri Gopal Prasad for the applicants and ld. JDR Shri Y.R. Kilania for the respondents. The goods in respect of which the Modvat credits in question were taken by the applicants are, admittedly, modvatable inputs under Rule 57A. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Good Earth Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT689TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Good Earth Steel (P) Ltd. is whether they are eligible to get abatement of duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate submitted that the appellants manufacture M.S. ingots on which Central Excise duty is discharged under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act; that due to disconnection of power supply, their factory remained closed from 14-4-1998 and was restarted on 24-4-1998; that they claimed abatement of duty during the said period which was denied by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur under the impugned order, dated 15-3-1999 who held that the assessee had not given intimation of closure on the very day of closure but only subsequently and that they have also not furnished the electricity meter reading.2 The learned Counsel submits that the conditions specified for claiming abatement was complied with by the appellants and hence t...
Tag this Judgment!