Delhi Court October 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut Vs. Union of India Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT177(Del)
Parkash Narain, A.C.J.1. The only question which arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the construction to be placed on a proviso contained in a notification, issued by the Central Government, bearing No. 13/65 of February 13, 1965 under the power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This notification was, admittedly, issued with a view to give incentive to the production of sugar in our country. The notification was issued exempting sugar in column 2 of the Table therein falling under sub-item (1) of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 from certain duty livable thereon as was in excess of the duty specified in column 3 of the said Table. In plain language, for production of sugar over and above a certain quantity of the manufacturer was entitled to certain rebate. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its business is to m...
J.S. Khanna and ors. Vs. University of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1980
Reported in: ILR1980Delhi1404; 1981(1)SLJ358(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 400 selection grade lecturers of various constituent and affiliated colleges of the University of Delhi seek twofold relief of retrospectivity of the revised scales of pay for readers of the University, made applicable to them, and voiding the purported abolition of the selection grade. The University of Delhi, the University Grants Commission and the Union of India are respondents, 1, 2 and 3 respectively.(2) The University of Delhi is a statutory authority, created by the Delhi University Act, 1922, for short, the Act, and is one of the Central Universities mentioned in Entry 63 of List-1 in the Vii Schedule to the Constitution. It functions under the Act, the statutes framed under Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, and the Ordinances made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and the Regulations made under Section 32 thereof. Section 2(a) of the Act defines the expression ' college' as an institution mainta...
Dalel Singh Vs. Jag Mohan Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ667a
ORDER1. On April 29, 1975, at about 10.30 or 11.00 p.m., Dalel Singh (P.W. 2) and Tale Ram (Kale Ram ?) (P.W. 6) were sitting on a cot eating their meal outside the house of Dalel Singh in village Matiala, P.S. Najafgarh, Pataso (P.W. 5), wife of his brother Hem Chander, was cooking the meal, Chandro (P.W. 8) his sister, was sitting near Pataso and his brother Balwan Singh (P.W. 1) was serving the meal. Then arrived the accused, Jagmohan held Dalel Singh, while Rajbir Singh stabbed him with a knife; when Tale Ram intervened, Jagmohan stabbed him. Upon hearing the cries of the injured, Balwan Singh, Pataso and Chandro rushed out of the house. Desa (P.W. 13) who was returning home also reached there. They saw the occurrence, Raj Singh (P.W. 7) took the injured to the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, after midnight. Dr. I. S. Rao (P.W. 3) examination Tale Ram, Dr. P. K. Julka (P.W. 4) examined Dalel Singh. Tale Ram was found to have sustained the following injuries :- (1) Incised wound 2.5...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT5(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent as applicable to this court has been preferred by the Central Excise Authorities from the order of the learned single judge of this court dated 28-8-1970 allowing a writ petition filed by J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and quashing an order dated 1-2-1963 by which the Central Excise Authorities decided that 'Polymer Chips' produced by the Company was covered by item 15A(iii) of the Central Excise Tariff and was dutiable as such. Though the arguments before the learned judge ranged over a very wide field, we feel that this appeal can be disposed of on a very short ground which, in our opinion, is actually covered by earlier decisions of this court. We shall, thereforee, refer to the facts and confine the discussion only to the extent it is relevant for the determination of this ground. 2. The company has a factory at Kota where it manufactures Nylon 6 yarn which is a commodity subjecte...
Devi Dayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT33(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These are two writ petitions filed by Devi Dayal Electronics and Wires Ltd., and its Executive Director and raise a common question as to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rules 9 and 49 framed there under (hereinafter referred to respectively as 'the Act' and Rules) which we think is practically concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. (1979 E.L.T. J 581). We shall, however, first set out the relevant facts to understand the context in which this question comes up for consideration. 2. The petitioner company, inter alia, manufactures different types of electrical wires, for this purpose the petitioner company purchases copper wire bars and aluminium rods/ingots. These wires bars, rods and ingots, after being processed, are coated with varnish for insulation. The varnish was being manufactured by the petitioner from resin. The petitioner held separate licenses for the manufac...
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT887(Del)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The first petitioner J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., as its name indicates, is carrying on the business of spinning yarn and also manufacturing fabrics. The second petitioner is a Director-Shareholder of the company. By this writ petition the petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing the directive of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Respondent No. 2) dated 6th October, 1976 as well as the orders dated 26th April 1979, 30th April, 1979 and 5th May, 1979 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise (Respondent No. 5). There is also a prayer in the alternative for a writ of mandamus which will be adverted to later. The controversy arises in the following way. 2. The petitioner company has a composite mill where it manufactures blended non-cellulosic spun yarn on which excise duty is payable under Tariff item 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, ('the Act,' in brief) and utilises the yarn within its own fa...
Kartar Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT206
M.S. Joshi, J. (1) On the death of Mrs. Gurmeet wife of Avtar Singh, a case under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and on completion of the investigation a charge-sheet for trial under the said provision of law was put up against Ranjit Kaur wife of Kartar Singh and mother-in-law of the deceased. Later on, Mohan Singh lodged a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Shahdara and attributed the murder of Gurmeet to Avtar Singh and Kartar Singh aforesaid, apart from Ranjit Kaur. This complaint was instituted on 9.5.1979 and on 19-5-1979 Magistrate committed Ranjit Kaur alone to the Court of Session. It was represented to Shri R. L.Chugh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, with whom the complaint mentioned above was pending that in view of the dictates of Section 210(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the two persons other than Ranjit Kaur accused in the complaint be also committed to the Court of Sess...
Jawaharlal Mamtani Vs. Bhagchand Motumal Mamtani and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1980
Reported in: ILR1981Delhi1
ORDER6, Rule 17 of the Code reads as under : 'THECourt may at any stage of the proceedingsallow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as maybe just, and such amendments shall lie madeas may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.'IT is settled law that a case has to be decided on thebasis of the pleadings before a court. Order 6 Rule 17permits and amendment of the pleadings so that matterswhich for some reasons were not pleaded earlier, can bepleaded by amendment to enable the court to do justice. Itnaturally follows, and that is the usual rule. that onceamendment has been allowed it relates back to the date ofthe filing of the suit so that justice is done between theparties on full and proper pleadings. All the same, it isdifficult to subscribe to the view that an amendment inevery case must relate back only to the date of the suit.The reason is obvious. Courts, in order to do justice be...
Sardar Kulwant Singh Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs and O ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT3(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The premises of the petitioner were searched on 24th April, 1968 by the Customs Officers. As a result of the search certain goods and currency mentioned in the Panchnama were seized. The seizure was effected from the office as well as the residential premises of the petitioner. 2. On 19th October, 1968 an order under section 110(2) of the Act was passed. The said order stated that the period for issuing of a show cause notice under section 124 was extended by another three months. The extended period for the issue of the show cause notice was thereafter further extended up to the end of January 1969 by a fresh order dated 19th January, 1969. On 30th January, 1969 a show cause notice under section 124 was issued. 3. The aforesaid show cause notice has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The retention of the seized goods has also been challenged. 4. With regard to the retention of the seized goods it is contended and not denied by the respondents, ...
Gian Singh and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1980
Reported in: 19(1981)DLT168
M.L. Jain, J. (1) By this writ petition certain legal questions were raised by the petitioners who were arrested in connection with the murder of Baba Gurbachan Singh, the Nirankari chief. The petitioners have since then been released under the proviso to S. 167 Cr. P.C. and the writ petition only survives for consideration of two legal questions :- (1)Whether the accused at the time of interrogation are entitled to the presence of a lawyer within the meaning of the Supreme court decision reported in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani and another : 1978CriLJ968 (2)Whether where an accused person has been remanded to judicial custody, he could still be interrogated or not?I have heard Gurcharan Singh Bawa at length on both the questions. (2) On the first question, I had an occasion to examine the matter in Ram Lakwani v. Sate, Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 211 of 1980, decided on April 24, 1980, and I see no reason to depart from the view taken therein then that the Supreme Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »