Delhi Court April 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 10 of about 102 results (0.020 seconds)Vinod Bedi Vs. Maha Prabhu P. Singhania and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT447
S.B. Wad, J. 1. This is the landlord's petition against the order of Additional Rent Controller, passed on 29th August, 1981. The order was passed in the execution proceedings for possession under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The learned Rent Controller held that the eviction order was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.B. Noronah v. Prem Kumari : 15(1979)DLT305 . The Rent Controller dismissed landlord's execution application.2. The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds :(a) The Rent Controller has not correctly appreciated the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case. The Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Vijay Kumar v. Inder Sain, : AIR1982Delhi260 (D.B.) has correctly construed the said judgment. (b) The Rent Controller has failed to appreciate that on the date of the execution the petitioner was already transferred to Delhi, his wife had taken up a job in Delhi and his sons were admitted to Delhi school. The justif...
Tag this Judgment!Pardeep Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT71
H.L. Anand, J.(1) Petitioner is a young student of about 17-18 years of age. He is charged with the murder of a girl with whom he was said to be in love. He is at present on interim bail to enable him to appear at theexamination. He has remained on bail for a period of almost one month.The victim did not make any dying declaration. It is said that the only eye-witnesses to the crime are the brother and uncle of the victim and that there is no independent witness. It is also stated that the incident was perhaps the result of an impulsive act of the petitioner who was deeply in love with thevictim. The investigation has nearly concluded and the challan is likely to be put in Court in the next few days. Bail is opposed inter alias on the ground that the accused Along with one or two co-accused was involved in another incident the same day but it is conceded that the name of the accused is not in the F.I.R. said to have been lodged in connection with the other incident. Having regard to th...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Electric Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC679DTri(Delhi)
1. These appeals were initially preferred before the Central Government by way of Revision Applications, which, on the constitution of this Tribunal, have been transferred to it in terms of the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as if they were appeals presented before it. These Revision Applications are hereinafter referred to as appeals.2. The only question which falls for decision in this batch of appeals is whether the goods imported by the appellants which are described in the invoice and the relative Bills of Entry "PRESSPAHN PAPER" were or were not entitled to be assessed at the concessional rate of duty provided in the Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) Customs Notification No. 37 of 1-3-1978. In order to better appreciate the contention of the appellants it is better to straightaway set out the Notification in extenso :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Cent...
Tag this Judgment!Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC677DTri(Delhi)
In this case, the appellants imported a shaft as a spare part for their Weir Turbo Feed Pump. The same was assessed by the Department as a transmission shaft under heading 84.63 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.The appellants seek its re-assessment at a lower rate of duty under heading 84.10 (1) CTA as an integral part of pump. They deny that it is a transmission shaft. Their argument is that the subject shaft does not tranmit power to any other machinery. They contend that it is a simple axle and rely on this Tribunal's Order reported at 1983 (1) ETR 164 (case of M/s. S.P. Trading Co. in support of their claim.2. The Department's representative states that the subject shaft transmits motive power from the turbine to the impeller of the pump. It is, therefore, a transmission shaft. The shaft itself rotates. It is, therefore, not a simple axle like the axle of a motor vehicle whose only function is to support other parts of the vehicle like wheels.3. We have carefully considered the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Avdhesh Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT482
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The brief facts are that on the night between 13th and 14th February, 1975 an explosion of high intensity took place in a Jhuggi of Mani Ram in Prem Nagar (Baljit Nagar) P.S. Patel Nagar in which three persons were injured. Investigation disclosed that a number of persons were engaged in the manufacture of bombs in Delhi. Some of the accused were disgruntled ex-employees of the Food Corporation of India and wanted to blow up its buildings. The ring leader Uttam Mandal made a disclosure statement that on 8-2-1975, 3 Kg. of Potash and 2 Kg. of Mandal were purchased for Rs. 490.00 by him from the shop of accused Avdesh Kumar in Mirzapur, U.P. On 2-3-1975 Uttam Mandal led the police to his shop where Suresh Chand and Avdesh Kumar were found sitting. Nothing incriminating was recovered from him. However, by his order of 14-7-1982 the Additional Sessions Judge held that Avdesh Kumar was not in conspiracy but was prima facie guilty of an offence under Section 6 of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1003DTri(Delhi)
2. This is a revision application filed under the then Section 131 (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962) against the Order No. S/3-1 196/76 dated 24-9-76 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.3. In this case, the appellants claimed refund of duty on the goods imported by them after re-assessing the duty (1) by taking the actual insurance charges into consideration and (2) at preferential rate of duty as the goods were imported from U.K. Their claim had been rejected as un-substantiated.4. Shri R.B. Singh, on behalf of the appellants, showed us the records to prove that the certificate of origin was submitted at the time of clearance. The letter of Insurance Company dated 16-8-1976 was also produced. The appellants Had submitted the evidence of actual insurance charges on 17-12-76 but the same was not collected in the Assistant Collector's office. He also showed evidence that the appellants' Clearing Agent had addressed ...
Tag this Judgment!Koundinya Industrial Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1001DTri(Delhi)
1. A common point is involved in these two appeals of the same appellants and they were, therefore, heard together on 4-4-1983.2. The point involved in these two appeals is whether stainless steel sheets in coils, having width of 500 mm. and thickness af 0.5 mm., are to be classified as sheets or as strips for the purpose of assessment of customs duty under the Indian Customs Tariff. The appellants relied on ISI definitions, Madras Custom House Public Notice No. 14/66, Government of India's Order-in-Revision No. 2065 of 1972, Exemption Notification No. 118/65-Customs and also the subsequent definitions incorporated in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which replaced the Indian Customs Tariff later, in support of their claim that the subject goods was strips. The Department's representative stated that the goods were described in the Bill of Entry as sheets which showed that as per the international trade practice they were known as sheets and not as strips. He also relied on CBR's Ruling ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed YamIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT464
M.L. Jain, J.(1) Three persons, Mohd Yamin, Allauddin, and Abdul Aziz were tried for offences under Sections 120B and 436 Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Allauddin and Abdul Aziz but convicted Mohd. Yamin under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 120B I P.C. He sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Rs.1000.00 in default rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a find of Rs. 500.00 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He did not award any sentence under Section 120-B. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal. (2) On 15-9-1980, bomb explosion took place in a room of the mosque Tyabji Maujpur. The explosion attracted the attention of Head Constable Raj Rumar (Public Witness 2), Bhurey Lal (Publi...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Publications Vs. Hind Pustak Bhawan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT423
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The plaintiffs respondents, the Hind Pustak Bhawan claiming to be the same as Hind Pustak Bhandar and Pustak Mahal a partnership concern; filed a suit on 23-12-1982 against the defendants appellants Diamond Publications for permanent injunction, the substance of which is that in April, 1976, the plaintiffs introduced in the market a book with a distinctive title 'Rapidex' English Speaking Gowk published under Pustak Bhandar and Pustak Mahal. The plaintiffs got it registered in 1976 under the Copyright Act, 1957 and also got the trade mark Rapidex registered in December, 1977 under the Trade and Merchandize Marks Act, 1958. They spent 6 to 8 lakhs of rupees by way of advertisement and publicity over it and their total sales ranged between 73 to 83 lakhs during the last two years or so. They brought out its 50th Edition in the years 1982 and named it the 'Golden Jubilee Edition'. The same year the defendants Diamond Publications brought out in the market a rival book en...
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Pal Singh Vs. Joginder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ237; 1983RLR754
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment dated 6-3-1982 passed by the learned Add]. District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage was dismissed.(2) The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6-10-1975 in accordance with Sikh/Hindu rites and customs at Delhi. Two children were born out of the wedlock on 2-1 1-1976 and 16-10-1978. The elder child is a boy and living with his father and the younger child is a girl and is living with the mother. It is further alleged that never since the marriage, the respondent was found to be a person of unsound mind. She would laugh and begin to weep without any reason. She would often shout and sometimes threaten to commit suicide. Her behavior from the very beginning and ...
Tag this Judgment!