Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

M/S. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC577

1. Application for stay filed by the applicant happened to be dismissed on 20-3-2001. On hearing counsel representing the appellant and on going through the averments made in the application filed for restoration, we restore the application for stay.2. After restoring the petition for stay, we heard learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Department Representative.As per the order impugned before us, appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,62,432.00. Learned counsel urged that the appellant is having a strong prima facie case to have the predeposit waived. We are not very much impressed with this argument prima facie.3. Petitioner has no case that he has financial difficulties. Since no argument has been advanced on the ground of undue hardship on account of financial difficulty in making predeposit, we direct the appellant to deposit Rs. two lakhs towards the duty claimed in the impugned order within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit being...

M/S. Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC53

1. Along with these appeals, appellant moved stay petition. When the stay petition came up for orders, we heard the leaned counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative in extenso. We perused the records. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that instead of passing order on the stay petition, appeal themselves can be disposed of.2. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether expenses incurred by the dealers to attend to free - after - sale services to the vehicles manufactured should be added to the assessable value for the purpose of making assessment under the Central Excise Act, 1944. This issue is settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court, the latest being that rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1064 of 1999 and 2208-09/99 in Collector of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/s.Pratap Steel Ltd. by the Supreme Court on January 18, 20001. Their Lordship reiterated the principles of law stated in the decision ...

Sh. Ramnik Gupta Vs. Ms. Sneh Lata Gupta Through L. Rs. and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)107; 92(2001)DLT600

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. Order passed on 23.1.2001 by learned Single Judge on an application filed by Satinder Singh Chhabra (respondent No. 13) directing him to be imp leaded as one of the defendants in the suit is under challenge by he appellant. The appellant is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Needless to add that plaintiff has not challenged the order of impleadment.2. Facts in brief are that on 5.4.1983 respondent No.1, one of the daughters of late Shri B.D. Gupta filed a suit against 13 defendants claiming decree for partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts with respect to the estate left by deceased Shri B.D. Gupta. Along with the suit an application (I.A. 1546/83) was also field under 40 Rules 1 CPC read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC praying for appointment of Receiver and for issuing order of restraint with respect to properties as described in Schedules A, B & C attached to the plaint. The prayer clause of the application reads as under:-'It is,...

Mr. Subash Sawhney and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)394

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. EFA (OA) 2/2001 Admit.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 4th December, 2000 by the learned Single Judge in Ex. no. 92/2000 refusing the prayer of the appellants/JDs for release of the title deeds.3. The suit had been filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 13,61,359.57 paisa against the appellant under the provisions of Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appellants No. 2 and 3 were stated to be the partners of appellant No. 1 and the suit amount related to the grant of credit facilities by the respondent to the appellant. Statement were made by counsel on 10th May, 1988 for passing a decree in terms thereof and judgment and decree was passed on 10th May, 1988.4. It is an admitted position that the decretal amount has been paid and the same was recorded in the order dated 4th December, 2000 in the execution petition. The said amount has ben directed to be released to respondent/decree-holder. In view of the fact that th...

Smt. Urmil Suneja Vs. Delhi Cooperative Tribunal and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1063; 92(2001)DLT272; 2001(59)DRJ501

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J (Oral)1. petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2000 passed by the Delhi cooperative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal under section 76 against the award dated 16.8.2000, passed by the Joint Registrar.The controversy in the writ petition relates to the seniority sought to be claimed by the petitioner as member of the Cooperative Society and consequently her entitlement for allotment of a flat.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has persuasively attempted to urge that while petitioner has persuasively attempted to urge that while petitioner had become a member on 18.10.1995, respondents 4 and 5 had become members of the society subsequently on 28.10.1995. For this he places reliance on an initial list, which is stated to have been prepared by the society and forwarded to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. He submits that the names or respondents 4 and 5 are shown at Seriall Nos. 211 and 212 with date of admission as 28.10.1995 in the list...

Ms. Santosh Kumari Vs. Shri Shiv Prakash Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2001Delhi376; II(2001)DMC223; 2001(59)DRJ590

ORDERM.S.A.Siddiqui, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is directed against the judgment dated 30th April, 1991 of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No.76/91, whereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant-wife, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 18th March. 1991 granting decree of divorce to the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called `the Act') was affirmed.2. There appears to be no dispute that the parties were married on 23rd June, 1985 in accordance with Hindu law. On 9th November, 1985, the appellant left her matrimonial home. On a petition being filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act of restitution of conjugal rights, parties started to live together from 9th November, 1986 and they did so till 3rd December, 1986. The appellant left the matrimonial home again on 4th December, 1986. Thus, on broad outlines, the parties did not differ but, as is norma...

Mr. Ranjit Thomas Vs. Ms. Annie R. Thomas

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 93(2001)DLT271; II(2001)DMC419; 2001(59)DRJ515

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. This is a petition under Section 18 read with Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. Petitioner seeks declaration of his marriage with respondent as null and void on the ground that the consent of the respondent was obtained by force by her parents.2. The marriage between the parties took place on 26th April, 1992 according to the Christian rites and customs at St. Peter's Cathedral, Kottayam in the State of Kerala. It was an arranged marriage. The parents of the petitioner responded to the advertisement that appeared in the matrimonial column given by the parents of the respondent. The petitioner is practicing as a lawyer in Delhi and the respondent is working as an Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police.3. However, the parties have lastly resided together in Delhi. They lived together for an inordinately short stint i.e. a week's time. It is alleged that during this period even though the petitioner made attempts to have intimate relationship with the re...

Shri Bhanu Mehra Vs. Shri Dato Brij Kishore and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001(60)DRJ1

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J.1. The defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri A.K.Garg, Additional District Judge, Delhi in suit No.391 of 1999 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for possession of the suit premises on the alleged admission of the defendant/appellant keeping the other questions relating to damages etc. pending consideration.2. Facts in so far as are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that on 20.8.1999 suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking a decree for possession of house No.M-97, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the plan attached to the plaint: a decree for damages for use and occupation from 1.7.1999 to 18.8.1999 at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month; a decree for recovery of Rs.1,40,000/- towards water charges: a decree for Rs.55,750/- towards electricity charges: and decree for use and occupation from the date of institution of the suit till recov...

Cce, Pune Vs. M/S. Telco

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT652TriDel

"In view of the fact that hydraulic power pack and coolant unit is itself a machinery, will not make them non-eligible for the benefit of notification No. 281/86 once they satisfy the conditions prescribed in the notification. Hydraulic power pack and coolant unit are used in the factory for repair and maintenance which will include replacement and as such the benefit of Notification is available".2. The facts on the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The appellants filed a classification list effective from 29.10.90 wherein they classified hydraulic power pack and coolant unit under Chapter sub-heading 8479.00 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86 as amended. On scrutiny of the classification list the Department noticed that hydraulic power packs were nothing but hydraulic engines. A SCN was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as why hydraulic power packs should not be classified under Chapte...

M/S. Kirpal Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Chandigarh who has rejected claims for abatement of duty for the period from 1.3.98 to 12.2.98 and 2.4.98 to 20.4.98, filed by the appellants herein who are manufacturers of non-alloy steel ingots/ billets etc. The claim for the first period has been rejected on the ground that they did not submit the continuous closure declaration in terms of Rule 86 ZO(2)(E) and claim for the second period has been rejected on the ground that they did not intimate to the Assistant Commissioner about closure neither prior to the date of closure or on the date of closure but only on the date after the closure.2. I have heard Shri K.K. Anand Ld. Adv. and Shri Jagdish Singh, Ld.Dr. I find that appellants have filed declaration on 12.2.98 stating that their furnace was closed from 3.2.98 at 8.00 am until 12.2.98 at 9.00 a.m., Therefore allegation of the department that continuous closure declaration was not filed is factual...