Delhi Court February 1982 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.
Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT463(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The first petitioner is a manufacturer of electric bulbs and electric tube lights. It is a limited liability company of which the second petitioner is the Managing Director as well as a shareholder. 2. It is not in dispute that the electric bulbs and electric tube lights manufactured by the first petitioner attract excise duty under Tariff Item 32(1) and (2) of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The excise duty is livable on an ad valorem basis as a percentage of the value of goods calculable on the cost of manufacture or in legal terminology the assessable value of the goods. It is also not in dispute that the assessable value has to be arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules framed there under which gives the basis for making the levy on such value comprised of manufacturing cost and manufacturing profits to be computed in accordance with the rule laid down by the Supreme C...
Zenon Electronics Private Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and Ot ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT454(Del)
Mr. Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of radio sets, tape recorders and combinations thereof. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner company as also a shareholder thereof. 2. The first petitioner states that it carries on its manufacturing activities in an industrial unit with capital investment of the value of not more than Rs. 10/- lakhs. This fact is not disputed and indeed admitted by the respondents. 3. Transistorised radio-sets attract excise duty under Item 33A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty is livable on an ad valorem basis as a percentage of the value of the goods. Normally, thereforee, the manufacture by the first petitioner of radio sets would attract duty of excise. The first petitioner, however, claims exemption from payment of duty of excise by virtue of an exemption Notification N...
Ram Lal Narang Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: ILR1983Delhi1
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks declarations that the detention order dated July 1, 1975 passed against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and the declaration also made on July 1, 1975 under Section 12A of the said Act are illegal and void ab initio. (2) The petition has arisen on these facts. Shri Ram Lal Narang, the petitioner pursuant to an order made on October 4, 1974 was detained under Section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short called the MISA), as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. Misa, as originally enacted did not provide for preventive detention erf persons suspected of smuggling or abetting smuggling, but these activities were brought within its ambit by the said Ordinance. The detention of the petitioner was challenged in the High Court of Bombay by his son Ram...
M. FareeduddIn Vs. Sri Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 22(1982)DLT279
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) These three appeals will be disposed of by the common judgment. They arise out of three suits filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section Ii 0-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appeal No. 139/1975 is by claimant, Fareeduddin against Sri Lal and Others; Appeal No. 144/1975 is by Gopal Transport Go. against Fareeduddin and Appeal No. 145/1975 is by Gopal Transport Go. against Shiv Nath Mehta. (2) Appellant in appeal No. 139/1975 has asked for enhancement of the amount awarded in the original suit (No. 342/1967) by which the tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs, 36,925.00 . Gopal Transport Company, the owner of the bus which was found by the tribunal to have been driven rashly and negligently by the driver, Sri Lal, and responsible for causing the accident. Appeal No. 144/1975 is against the grant of the damages to the appellant/ Fareeduddin. Appeal No. 145/1975 is filed against the grant of compensation to two other persons namely, Shiv Nath Mehta in the ...
Sarla Mittal Vs. K.C. Jain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT334; 1982RLR455
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) has been filed by the tenant against the judgment dated 9th March, 1981 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi ordering her eviction on an application having been filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(l)(c). (2) The tenant is in occupation of the front portion of he uilding bearing No. B-7, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. The said portion consists of three bed rooms, one drawing cum-dining room, three bath rooms, one kitchen, one store, lobby and one garage on the ground floor and a terrace and a bath room on the roof of the first floor. The premises were let out with effect from 1st February, 1974 at a monthly rentofRs.lOOO.00 . The landlord is in occupation of the rear portion of the said house as well as of one garage and two servant quarters on top of the garage. (3) The landlord filed an application under Section 14(1)(e) for eviction of the tenant. It was contended that the premises in dispute were let for re...
Lachhman Dass and ors. Vs. Suraj Prakash Mahajan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi380; 21(1982)DLT277
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the appellants against the order of the Rent Control (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', passed against the appellants, under clause (f) of the proviso to sub-sec, (1) of Section 14 of the Act. (2) The order for eviction was passed by the Tribunal on 11-9-79 reversing the order of the 6th Addl. Rent Controller dated 20-5-1977. (3) The second appeal came; up for consideration before Kirpal, J. and the learned Judge by order dated 20-8-1980 noticed the objection of the appellants that there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal 'that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation', and called for the report of the Tribunal. The operative part of the order of Kirpal, J. reads as under : 'The Rent Control Tribunal is accordingly 'directed to hear the parties afresh on the evidence on record and give a finding with regard to ...
Bharat Lal and Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi444; ILR1982Delhi751; 1982RLR193
Avadh Behari Rohtgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of a learned single judge dated 29th November, 1978. (2) These are the facts. The appellant, Bharat Lal, sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat Lal & Co., entered into a contract with the respondent Northern Railway, for doing conservancy wort at Ghaziabad. This contract was for a period of 2 years, that i-', from 1-7-1968 to 30-6-1970. A formal agreement was executed on 24-10-1968. Bharat Lal did the work assigned to him for 20 months. But the Railway did not pay him as per terms of the agreement. He was to be paid Rs. 830 per month. The Railway rescinded the contract on 20th November, 1969 with effect from 20th February, 1970. (3) Bharat Lal made an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) for filing the arbitration agreement and fop referring the matter to the arbitrator. In this application he detailed as many as 7 disputes which be raised. (4) Bharat Lal referred to the following two clauses in the ag...
Ram Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1982
Reported in: 21(1982)DLT227; 1982(3)DRJ159; 1982RLR318
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner herein, was convicted under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code by a Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 16th October, 1980; and after affording an opportunity to him of being heard on the question of sentence he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 , in default of payment he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. This order was passed on 21st October 1980' By this order, the learned Magistrate directed that out of the fine if deposited, Rs. 400.00 be paid to the complainant. He also passed the direction under Section 456 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restoring the possession of the immovable property to the complaint Naki Devi.(2) The appeal challenging the conviction and sentence was heard by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, who, while passing the order of dismissal of the appeal, (3) Shri D.R. Sethi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not seriously challenge the concurrent findings of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›