Delhi Court October 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 5 of about 56 results (0.018 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT445TriDel
1. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, praying for stay of "the enforcibility of the Appellate Collector's order" till the appeal is decided by the Tribunal. (Statement at the top of the application). (c) except for a statement that the Appellate Collector's order, unless stayed, "will result in substantial temporary loss of legitimate revenue to the Central Government," there was neither any quantification of the exact amount of duty or penalty that would have become payable but for the Appellate Collector's order ; nor any reasons given as to why it is anticipated that the revenue, if found due to the Appellant in the instant Appeal, will become irrecoverable from the Respoadent; 3. It would, however, appear from the cross-objection filed for the Respondent-although no cross-objections could be entertained, since it was not as if the Respondent Appeal was allowed in part only so that there could be cross-objections for that par...
Tag this Judgment!Amitabh Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT597TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as Revision application to Government of India is whether the demand of Rs. 30,658.74 made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur by his order dated 25-3-1968 from the appellants and substantially upheld by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur by his order dated 4-3-1970 is correct.2. It might be stated that the Government of India by their order No.1499/1972 dated 25-9-1972 had held that difference in weight of yarn on the minus side would not go beyond one per cent on account of natural causes and therefore they allowed abatement of duty to the extent of one per cent in the case. This order was challenged before the Allahabad High Court, who by their order dated 23rd August, 1972 quashed the Revisionary order passed by the Central Government and directed the Central Government to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, and in the light of observations made in the judgment. It is thus that re...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Guest Keen Williams Ltd., Delhi Vs. Murari Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT132; 1984(6)DRJ23
1. Admitted. 2. This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeals No. 47 and Cr. Misc (M) 322 of 1982 since in all these cases common question of law and fact is involved. 3. The appellant M/s. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. prosecuted the respondent under Sections 78 and 79. Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, in four different complaints. All these complaints were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 13th January 1982 under Section 249. Cr.P.C. in absence of the complainant. 4. The complainant filed four revision petitions for the revision of the aforesaid order. The offences under Sections 78 and 79. Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, are triable as summons cases. It seems an objection was taken that the impugned order should be deemed to have been passed under Section 256, Cr.P.C. and that under Section 249, Cr.P.C. and that under Section 256, Cr.P.C. the accused are to be deemed to have been acquitted and, thereforee, only an appeal lies against the order of acquittal and t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Nasir Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT269
M.L. Jain, J.(1) This order will disposes of three criminal appeals Nos 173/80, 277/80 and 281/80 and two Cr. Misc (M) 466/80 and 511,.81. (2) By his judgment dated May, 9, 1980 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows . (1)Mohd. Nasir under section 392 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code to sentence of 3' years rigorous Imprisonment, and (2)Naseem&(3)Rajab under section 392/34 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code to a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. (3) The above sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, these appeals and revisions. (4) The prosecution case is that Charan Dass, a resident of Mahabir Nagar, who runs a dairy in village Gola Tajpur, came to Delhi on August 26, 1979 at about 9.00 p.m. in order to examine a buffalo for the purpose of purchasing the same from a seller in Turkman Gate and remained there for about one to two hours. The transaction fell through because the owner of the buffalo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar and anr. Vs. Punjab Exchange Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT173
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) ADMITTED. We have heard the counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against the order of 29-8-1983 and 8-9-1983 by which review was sought of the earlier order. By the order of 29-8-1983 the Official Liquidator was directed to hand over vacant possession of certain part of the premises in occupation of the company respondent No. 2 (which is in liquidation) to respondent No. 1. With regard to the portion which are occupied by other persons liberty was given to the respondent No. 1 to take proceedings against them under law but making it very clear that there was no question of handing over the physical vacant possession of these parts to the respondent No. 1. (2) An order of winding up of the company was passed on 23-4-1981. Appeal against that order was dismissed on 9th November, 1981 and S. L. P. filed against order was dismissed in May, 1982. The company was said to be carrying on the business of forward trading in Jaggery, which because of the ban by the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Rani Vs. Om Parkash Saini
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi301; 1984(6)DRJ281; 1984RLR309
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) The respondent husband brought a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) against the wife the petitioner. On an application under Section 24 of the Act by the wife the Additional District Judge made an order on 12-5-1980 for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. He ordered the husband to pay Rs. 400.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 100.00 per month on account maintenance with effect from 18-2-1980, the date of the application. For payment the Judge fixed 23-5-1980.(2) The husband did not pay. So on 26-5-1980, the judge made this order :- 'THE file be consigned to record room for the present. The petitioner can revive the petition after complying with order dated 12-5-1980.'The wife made an application for execution of the order of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 28A of the Act. The Judge issued warrant of attachment for the recovery of litigation expenses and mainte...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Kumar Sangal Vs. Auto Lamps Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas742(Delhi)
Khanna, J.1. Ravinder Kumar Sangal has been holding different posts in the respondent company from 1954. Earlier he was designated as office manager and for some time as commercial manager. From October 1, 1977, he was promoted as marketing manager in the scale of pay Rs. 1,500-150-3,000. He was also entitled to some perquisites, viz., reimbursement of medical expenses, benefit of employer's contribution to the provident fund, encashment of unveiled leave, bonus as admissible to other employees of the company. A resolution to this effect was passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the respondent company held on October 28, 1974. He was then described as commercial manager with the same scale of pay and other perquisites. 2. From 1977-78 to 1981-82 he was paid the amounts as under : 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82a) Salary 27,000 28,000 30,000 34,500 34,453b) Reimburse-ment in lieuof privilegenot availed 1,950 1,200 1,275 - 4,400c) Annual bon-us 1,500 2,500...
Tag this Judgment!Roofrite Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 25(1984)DLT182; 1984(6)DRJ40; 1984RLR50
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) THIS civil revision is directed against the order dated August 9, 1977 of Shri P.K. Jain, then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner M/s. Roofrite Private Limited, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, against the order dated February 24, 1976 of Shri K.C. Lohia, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi.(2) THE agreed findings of both the courts below are to the effect that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that the controversies posed by this litigation were disputes referable to the arbitrator under the arbitration agreement.(3) BOTH the aforesaid findings have now been challenged by the plaintiff/revision- petitioner in this petition as erroneous.(4) THE plaintiff-petitioner is a manufacturer of Tar-felt under I.S.I. license and is a registered contractor for water proofing and damp proofing works with the M.E.S. The Garrison Engineer, M.E S. Sagar Cantt., respondent No. 2, on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Saroop Ram Nath Vs. Shikhar Chand Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi143; 1984(6)DRJ28; 1984RLR35
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) In this civil revision the plaintiff-petitioner assails the impugned order dated January 17, 1978 passed by Shri M.S Rohilla, Sub Judge, Delhi whereby the petitioner's prayer for the production of witnesses was disallowed and the application in that regard was dismissed with costs.(2) The petitioner had filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,543.18 for the price of goods alleged to have been purchased by the defendant-respondent. Issues were framed in the case by the learned trial court on May 5, 1977 and the case was adjourned to August 17, 1977 for the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The evidence was not recorded on that day and the case was again adjourned to September 29, 1977 on which day the statement of Kishan Chand, the partner of the plaintiff-petitioner, was recorded and the remaining case of the petitioner was closed as the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner had not been filed within the permitted period of 15 days from the str...
Tag this Judgment!Atro Devi Vs. Dittu Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ186
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) This is a revision against the order of the Rent Controller dated 24-1-1981. The landlady sued the tenant for eviction on the ground that one room in property No. 867 Mehrauli was let to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10.00 for residential purpose and that she required the same for occupation for herself and members of her family and that she had no reasonably suitable residential accommodation.(2) The tenant contested the petition mainly on one ground. His defense was that this room was a part and parcel of a single tenancy consisting of one shop of 2 rooms. It is not in dispute between the parties that the tenant is carrying on a druggist shop in the two rooms constituting the shop from the very inception of the tenancy in 1958. This room appears to have been taken by the tenant sometimes later on. It is the landlady's own case that it was being used by the servants of the tenant. On the evidence adduced by the parties the Rent Controller came to the conclusi...
Tag this Judgment!