Delhi Court October 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 56 results (0.019 seconds)Abilities (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT619TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is whether the appellants were entitled to get exemption under Notification No.71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 and whether the demand of Rs. 99,979.10 (Basic) and Rs. 4,998.95 (Special) confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-H, Ghaziabad by his order dated 31-3-1981 and upheld by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi by his order dated 17-3-1983 is correct.2. The appellants, a small scale manufacturers, inter alia are engaged in the manufacture of products falling under Tariff Item 34A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Act). One of the products manufactured and cleared by the appellants is Pistons. They filed a Classification List on 30-3-1978 effective from 1-4-1978 claiming benefit of Notification No. 71/78-C.E.at nil rate of duty for the first clearance of Rs. 5 lakhs and to a chargeable rate of duty for clearances exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs and ...
Tag this Judgment!Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2038DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19H, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The main issue in this case is whether the foodstuff "Paushtik" manufactured by the appellants is eligible for exemption from duty under Notification No. 17/70-C.E. dated 1-3-70 as amended. According to the appellants, "Paushtik" is a low cost nutrition food meant for supply to the U.P. Government for free supply to school children. It cannot be used for making beverages, invalid foods and gruels by mixing with or boiling in water, but is simply a snack not requiring any mixing.3. In the classification list dated 10-3-78 filed by them, the appellants had indicated the classification of this product as being under Item IB of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule but claimed that it was exempted from duty (they did no...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Dass Malhotra Vs. Dhanwant Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi83; 26(1984)DLT377
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The appellant, Ishwar Das Malhotra, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 17.500.00 based on the mortgage of two properties. Dhanwant Singh, defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) was the person stated to have taken loans from the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of these mortgages while defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were the persons who had allegedly purchased the mortgaged properties subsequently. The suit of Malhotra was decreed but only against defendant No. I, Dhanwant Singh, and his suit as against defendants Nos. 2 to 5 was dismissed with costs. It was held that Dhanwant Singh was not competent to mortgage one property and as regards the other property no mortgage was enforceable. Malhotra was also awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum and not at 7% per annum as claimed by him. Aggrieved, Malhotra has appealed to (his court. (2) The two mortgaged properties are .'(1) house No. J-6/87 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, and (2) house No. j-7/24, Rajouri Garden...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh and Sons P. Ltd. Vs. Kalawati and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas94(Delhi)
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. This is a petition moved under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), by Bhagwan Dass and Sons P. Ltd. for sanction of a scheme of arrangement approved by the creditors and shareholders at meetings held on April 25, 1978. Thereby the unsecured liabilities were approved to be paid at 50% of their value in yearly Installments of 10% covering a period of five years. The rest of 50% liabilities have to be treated as wiped off. 2. The company was incorporated in the year 1960 for doing the business of manufacture and dealings in electrical equipments. It has its business premises in Connaught Place, New Delhi. The company is otherwise close-knit with Jaswant Singh as its managing director and his wife, Mohinder Kaur, as director. The shareholders are relations or friends. The subscribed capital is Rs. 1,30,000. 3. It is averred in the petition that the company had to face considerable difficulties from the very inception. In the year 1963, ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Singh and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes7; 25(1984)DLT156
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The matter starts like this. On 2.6.1983 Mohd. Usman of Nangloi, Delhi, informed the police station Nangloi at 10.50 P.M. that the petitioner No. 1 Ishwar Singh @ Langra the actually seems to be lame) Along with the other persons abused the local Muslim community and threatened them that he would not allow them to stay in Camp No. 2, Nangloi. Asi Dalel Singh rushed to the spot. Petitioner No. 1 slipped away from the spot, but Vijinder and Hawa Singh petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were found abusing the Muslims of the area and were threatening them with dire consequences. There was every likelihood of the breach of peace. Asi Dalel Singh took Vijinder and Hawa Singh into custody. Against them the Assistant Commissioner of Police started proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr. P.C. Bailable warrant was issued by him on 5.6.1983 against Ishwar Singh. (2) On 8.6.1983 Ishwar Singh and the two petitioners filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. against the police with...
Tag this Judgment!Frank Anthony Public School Vs. Amar Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ47
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) No other act of the Indian legislature has shown such a high fecundity as the Rent Acts in producing complex problems for judges and lawyers to solve. A leading text book in England is dedicated 'to the draftsmen of the Acts with awe and affection' and to the judges who administer them 'with a sympathy as profound as it is respectful'. (Sir Robert Meggary : The Rent Acts). (2) The facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) seeking eviction of the tenant. The Frank Anthony Public School, from the first floor of house No. R-231, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The School had taken these premises on rent from the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 747.00 per month. On the ground that premises were bona fide required by the landlady for herself and members of her family she sued the tenant for eviction. (Section 14(1)(e) of the Act). (3) The Additional Rent ...
Tag this Judgment!