Delhi Court February 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.
Bhim Sen Sharma Vs. Krishna Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT461
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated November 4, 1981 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.2. The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in June 1962 at village Nagta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties lived together in District Kangra and thereafter shifted to Delhi. A male child was born out of the wedlock in the year 1967 in District Kangra. The said child was deformed and of unsound mind who later expired in the year 1972 at New Delhi. It is further alleged that since the inception of marriage between the parties, the respondent was of quarrelsome nature and continued to quarrel with the appellant...
Mukund Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC513DTri(Delhi)
2. Appellants filed Revision Application before the Government of India which under Sub-section (2) of Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act) as amended by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980) stands transferred to the Tribunal for disposal, as if it were an appeal presented before it.3. Appellants are manufacturers of the goods called "Jockey Pulley" and are holding Central Excise Licence for manufacturing the same. The Appellants submitted the Classification Lists from time to time and whenever required under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called Rules) which were approved by the competent authority and the goods were classified under Tariff Item No. 68. The goods were also assessed accord-ingly on their monthly Return in Form RT-12 from time to time. It appears that as per Tariff Advice No. 14 of 1981, dated 6-2-81 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, a clarification was made regarding the app...
Transformers and Electricals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1801TriDel
1. A Revision Application was filed against Orders No. C. 27AP/51/1980, 52/1980, 53/1980, 54/1980, 55/1980 and 56/1980 all dated 21-5-82 which was transferred by the Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since there were altogether six appeals involved, separate appeals have been filed in the other five cases also. We are dealing with Order No. 51/1980, in this case but the subject being identical, the decision will apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals.2. M/s. Transformers and Electricals, the Appellants, imported at Cochin six consignments of Porcelain Insulators, which were originally assessed under Bills of Entry No. 403 & 404/30-9-77 and 481 to 484/24-8-77, applying heading 85" 18/27 (i) CTA, 23B(4) CET read with Notn. No. 152/71-C.E., dt. 26-11-71 at 60%+15%4-CVD at 15%. Since Notification No. 152 of 71 was deemed to exempt only Porcelain Insulators and complete insulators were classifiable under item 68,...
Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC455DTri(Delhi)
1. The question involved in this case is whether internal combustion engines manufactured by the appellants and designed for being fitted to forklift trucks are chargeable to duty under item 29(0 of the Central Excise Tariff, as held by the Department, or under item 29(ii), as urged by the appellants.2. Shri Ramasubramaniam, on behalf of the appellants, referred to the wording of item 29(i) CET and stated that only those I.C. engines fell under this item which were designed for use as a prime-mover for transport vehicles, that transport vehicles were those which plied on public roads and for fairly long distances, that a vehicle for mechanised transport must be a motor vehicle first, that for this reason it was relevant to refer to the definitions of 'Public Service Vehicle' and 'Goods Vehicle' in the Motor Vehicles Act, that in this sense forklift trucks were not transport vehicles but work trucks used for a short distance transport within the factory area and that the other features...
Shri Siri Kishan Vs. Smt. Kanta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ117
N.N. Goswamy, J. 1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby his petition under Section 9 of the HinduMarriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed on the ground that there was no valid marriage between the parties. 2. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent and also imp leaded her father as a co-respondent. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 2-9-1979 at Delhi in accordance with the Hindu rites. The father of the respondent did not approve of this marriage being an inter-caste marriage and got falsely registered a case in Police Station BahdadurGarh against the appellant under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the marriage was performed without any coercion or undue influence by Pandit Daya Ram Sharma of Darga Mandir, N...
Shri Gurdipa Singh Vs. Smt. Ram Dev and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ38; 1983RLR304
Sultan Singh, J.1. Shri Ram Dev, predecessor of the respondents, on 2nd December, 1967 filed an application for eviction of Shri Gurdip Singh, appellant-applicant on the: ground mentioned in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act) with respect to a garage which is a part of property No. 8574, Basti Ara Kashan, Rani Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi. The Additional Controller on 3rd May, 1973 passed an order of eviction which was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal by order dated 14th January, 1977 against the tenant. The tenant filed second appeal (S.A.O. No. 62 of 1977) in this court. On 27th October, 1978 the tenant gave an undertaking to this court to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises on or before 3.1st October, 1978. This undertaking was accepted by court by order dated 30th October, 1978.2. The applicant-tenant has filed this application under Section 19 ofthe Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that ...
Jawahar Engineering Co. and ors. Vs. Javahar Engineering Private Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi166; 24(1983)DLT129
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The respondents filed a suit against the defendants on the basis of a registered trade mark claiming a perpetual injunction, passing off and rendition of accounts, on the Original Side of this Court. The claim of the plaintiffs was that they had a registered trade mark 'Javahar' in respect of diesel oil engines. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had applied for registration of the trade mark 'Jawahar' in respect of diesel oil engines for the States of U.P., Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Rajasthan and the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh. This application No. 291514B was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal. The object of the suit was to injunct the defendants from using the trade-mark 'Jawahar' or a deceptively similar trade mark.2. A preliminary issue was framed on the pleadings in the suit as follows :--'Has this Court jurisdiction to try the suit?'On this issue, evidence was examined on the basis of which it was held that there was no evidence that ther...
Gora Mal Hari Ram Vs. Bharat Soap and Oil Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT401
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. We have heard this appeal after issuing a show cause notice to the defendants. As the subject-matter of the suit pending on the Original Side of the High Court was the issue of a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the impugned trade mark 'Savera', we thought an expeditious disposal of the appeal was necessary.2. We have had advantage of the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing an interim injunction and we have also been taken through the record of the case. The plaintiffs-appellants claimed that they had been manufacturing soap using the trade mark 'Savera' since 18th March, 1976, but this was disputed by the defendants. On the other hand, it was claimed that after an extensive inquiry and investigation in the market, they found that the impugned trade mark was used by two soap manufacturers under some territorial limits--one manufacturer was Ashoka Industries, who had a registered trade mark restricted to the district of Ujjain and th...
Jhonson Electric Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1096TriDel
1. The case was argued before us on 15-2-1983. In this case, the Appellate Collector allowed the appellant's claim for refund on account of set-off in terms of exemption notification No. 178/77-CE for the period after 30-6-1978 and rejected the claim in respect of the earlier period on the ground of time-bar under Rule 11 read with second proviso to Sub-rule (10) of Rule 173PP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants stated that the time-bar was not applicable to their claim as they had made the claim for set-off in the very beginning in their classification list submitted to the Assistant Collector on 8-3-1978.The Assistant Collector did not approve the classification list for well over a year and they, therefore, reminded the Assistant Collector on 23-4-1979. Ultimately, the Assistant Collector approved the classification list after striking off the entry relating to the appellant's claim for set-off. They stated that the Assistant Collector gave no reasons for deleting thi...
Indian Optical Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC381DTri(Delhi)
1. The business-cum-residential premises of Shri Radhakrishan Gupta, proprietor of the firm at Model Basti, Delhi was searched by officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 3-1-77 and 2932 pairs of multifocal semi-finished lenses of assorted power 54x53 mm size and of USA origin, valued at Rs. 15,000/- were recovered. On demand, Shri Gupta did not produce any document showing the lawful acquisition/import of goods. After investigation, a notice was issued on 18-6-77 by the Assistant Collector Customs (Preventive), Delhi, to the party to show cause why the said lenses should not be confiscated Under/Section l11(d) of the Customs Act 1962, for violation of Section 11 read with Import Trade Control Order No. 17/5.5 issued under Section 3 of the Imports & Exports Control Act, 1947. In his reply and during personal hearing, Shri Radhakrishan pleaded that these lenses had been imported under Bill of Entry No. 1576/131 dated 20-3-71 at Bombay Port against an Import Licence da...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »