Delhi Court January 1983 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.
Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC439DTri(Delhi)
1. Appellants filed a Revision Application before the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), as it existed before its amendment by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980), which stands transferred under the provisions of Section 131-B ibid to the Appellate Tribunal to be disposed of by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants imported a consignment 'Air Dryer MA 1000-180-207 E Electric Heater and Drive Motor for 400 V, 50 HZ'. The Bill of Entry was presented in the Import Department of the Bombay Custom House on 17-10-77 when the goods were assessed under Heading No. 84.59(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and duty levied at 60%+15% Basic Customs duty and Auxiliary duty respectively. The appellants paid the Customs duty as well as auxiliary duty as per this assessment on 21-11-1977.3. It appears that by notification No. 214-Customs dated 15-10-1977, duty under Sub-heading (1) o...
Mr. Meier Heinz Albert Vs. Additional Collector (Air
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1983
Reported in: (1983)(12)ELT636TriDel
1. This appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Palam Airport raises rather a delicate issue of a foreigner having to face considerable hardship arising out of a conviction by a Court of Law as well as the imposition of penalty in separate Customs proceedings. As such, perhaps it would be useful to set out the facts in some great detail. The appellant is a Swiss National Mr. Heinz Meier Albert who was stated to have been intercepted by Customs Preventive Officer at the exit gate of the Green Channel on his arrival in Delhi by Flight TC-914 on 22-5-82. It is alleged that his baggage examination in the presence of two independent witnesses led to the recovery of wrist watches, watch side bars, integrated circuits and car switches in considerable number collectively valued at Rs. 82,128/-. The said Swiss National could not produce, on demand, any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to establish their lawful import.2. The contention of the Department is that the s...
Tulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC384DTri(Delhi)
This is a Revision Application to the Central Government which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. M/s. Denison Hydraulics India Ltd. imported a consignment of "Solenoids" through the Port of Bombay. The goods were classified under Heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule and assessed to duty at 60% ad valorem (basic duty) plus 15% ad valorem (Auxiliary duty). The Appellants cleared the goods on payment of the duty so assessed. Later on M/s. Tulsidas Khimji Pvt. Ltd., Licensed Customs House Agents, filed a refund application before the Assistant Collector of Customs, on behalf of the said importers, claiming re-assessment of the goods under Heading 84.61(2) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector held that in accordance with Rule 3(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Schedule (hereinafter called the Interpretative Rules), the most...
Om Parkash Vs. Northern Railway and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes369; 23(1983)DLT454
M.L. Jain, J. 1. This is a revision petition which has arisen in the following circumstances.2. On 25-9-1978 at about 6.16 p.m. the Food Inspector purchased a sample of cow's milk from Om Parkash, petitioner, who was selling milk in the Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Upon analysis, the milk was found to be adulterated because it was deficient in non-fatty solids. Second part of the sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory but the bottle was found leaking and the contents decomposed. Upon the third sample bottle being sent to the Central Food Laboratory, the Director reported that the sample was adulterated because the solids non-fat were below the prescribed minimum. The petitioner was convicted under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Upon appeal, the judgment was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal as it appeared that proper examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to certificate of th...
ideal Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Pride of India Pictures Ltd. (In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi546; [1985]57CompCas546(Delhi); ILR1983Delhi919
Anand, J. 1. These applications under s. 45D of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, by a bank, in liquidation, against a joint stock company, also in liquidation, and another joint stock company which claims to be its creditor, are based on disputes between the bank, on the one hand, and the company in liquidation and its creditor on the other, as to the nature of the indebtedness of the company in liquidation to the bank, the identity of the assets by which the debt purported to be secured, and raise some interesting questions with regard to limitation and certain provisions of the Banking Regulation Act. 2. Ideal Bank Ltd., now in liquidation, for short 'the bank', was carrying on the business of banking, inter alia, in Delhi. Pride of India Pictures Ltd., also in liquidation, for short 'the company' respondent No. 1, was a company carrying on the business of exhibition of cinematographic films, inter alia, in Meerut and Hardoi. In the year 1946, the company opened a cash credit accoun...
Puran Chand Sawhney Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD417(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of all the four appeals mentioned above. The assessment year involved in all the four appeals is the assessment year 1973-74.2. Under three lease deeds dated 9-3-1923 and registered with Sub-Registrar of Delhi under Nos. 1587,1588 and 1589 in Additional Book No. 1, Vol. 10 at pages 297 to 304, 305 to 312 and 313 to 320, respectively, between the Secretary of State for India in Council and R.B.L. Tirath Ram Shah Sawhney, three plots of land measuring 2.45 acres, 3.02 acres and 3.02 acres situated on 1, South End Road, 19, Prithvi Raj Road and 20, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, respectively, were leased out in perpetuity to the said R.B.L. Tirath Ram Shah Sawhney. After obtaining the three lease deeds, the said R.B.L. Tirath Ram Shah Sawhney became lessee in perpetuity of the said three plots of lands measuring in the aggregate 8.49 acres and constructed some buildings on the said plots of lands.3. Upon the death of said R.B.L. Tirath Ram Shah Sawhney, the lease...
Lovely Benefit Chit Fund and Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Puran Dutt Soo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi413; 23(1983)DLT261; 1983(5)DRJ27
Sultan Singh, J.1. This is an application for making the award of Shri D.R. Dhamija, Advocate dated 18th September, 1980 a rule of the court. The respondents have filed objections to the award.2. Briefly the facts are that Puran Dutt Sood of Ludhiana respondent No. 1 took a chit of the value of Rs. 10,000/- from M/s. Lovely Benefit Chit Fund & Finance (P) Ltd., the petitioner company and agreed to pay Installments of Rs. 200/- each for 50 months as contribution. Respondent No. 1 gave a bid in an auction held by the petitioner on 16th August, 1974 and received Rs. 6000/- from it and agreed to forego Rs. 4000/- commission, dividend discount etc. in accordance with Rules and Regulations. He executed the agreement dated 3rd October, 1964 in favor of the petitioner and agreed to pay Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner against the said chit of Rs. 10,000/-. Ganesh Parkash Gupta and Surinder Singh Sood, both of Ludhiana respondents 2 and 3 executed surety bond as guarantors for punctual pay...
Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ55
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This three appeals raise the same common issue and can be disposed of altogether. As it is common ground that the facts involved are the same and the disposal of one of the appeals will also cover the other two, we proceed to deal with the facts and the contentions urged in F.A.O (OS) 50/79, the order in which will cover the other two appeal as well.2. The appellant M/s Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. submitted a tender on 23-9-1968 giving quotations for the erection and commissioning of a boiler with its auxiliaries for the 5th Unit at the Indraprastha Power Station Project at Delhi. This tender was made to the Executive Engineer, Electrical III, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (a department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi) in response to an advertisement calling for tenders published by the above officer. According to the appellant the tenders submitted by it as well as other contractors were examined and the appellant's tender was accepted after negotiations held with ...
S. Swaranjit Singh Kohli and ors. Vs. Shri Shiv Dutt Salwan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ34
Sultan Singh, J.1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as, 'the Code') by the defendants is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th November, 1982 of the Additional District Judge refusing to hear their appeal challenging the order dated 22nd May, 1982 to temporary injunction passed by the trial court restraining them from making any construction in the, premises, during the Pendency of an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code for alleged violation of the said temporary injunction, 2. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 is in occupation of Shop No. 10 Marina Arcade, Connaught Circus, New Delhi as a tenant under defendants 1 to 3. 1 The said shop is a portion of 2 1/2 storey building known by the name of Marina Hotel and Marina Arcade. The plaintiff on 11th May, 1982 filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction whatsoever on the roof of the shop of the plaint...
J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Another Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1983
Reported in: 1983LC117D(Delhi); 1983(12)ELT239(Del); ILR1983Delhi518
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions (viz. C.W. 1858 of 1981, C.W. No. 1113 of 1981, C.W. 1190 of 1982 and C.W. 2568 of 1982) filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as all the petitions raise identical question of law. The facts as such are not in dispute. 2. To understand the controversy it will be pertinent to briefly notice some facts. As common questions of law alone have been raised, we will only set out the facts in civil Writ No. 1858 of 1982. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the first petitioner. A composite Spinning and Weaving Mill is owned and run by the first petitioner in which yearn is spun and ultimately converted into fabrics of different types. According to the petitioners, yearn is obtain...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »