Delhi Court April 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.
Udey Raj GIn Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-22-1983
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ19
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) This judgment will dispose of these two writ petitions in which the question of law that arises for consideration is identical. (2) The petitioner in Civil Writ No. 612 of 1982 was the owner of a plot of land measuring 119 sq. yds. situated in village Karkar Doma, Shahdara, Delhi. This land was covered by a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 13/11/1959. It was finally acquired after the making of an Award No. 54A of 1970-71, given by the Land Acquisition Collector in 1971. The petitioner received compensation. There after the petitioner coming to know of a scheme for allotment of urban land for construction of houses with regard to persons whose homestead land had been acquired, moved the Delhi Administration for allotment of a plot of land. After some verification and giving of necessary declarations etc., the petitioner was allotted plot No. 26 in Block B of Jhilmil, Phase Ii, Delhi by a memorandum dated 15/9/1980. He was...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC773DTri(Delhi)
1. This case came up for hearing on the 23rd of December, 1982 and today i.e., on 21-4-1983.2. This is a revision application to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under section 35 P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) against the order-in-appeal No. 644/79, dated 4-7-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay.3. The appeal relates to the metal name plates manufactured by M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd., Bombay. This company supplied the said name plates to another company viz. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. The claim of the manufacturers i.e. M/s Excel Process Pvt. Ltd. before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had been that the name plates manufactured by them were parts/accessories of Motor Vehicles and as such they were liable to be classified under Tariff Item 34A C.E.T. and that by virtue of notification No. 99/71-C.E. dated 29-5-1971 were exempt from the payment of the whole of duty of excise leviable ...
Aggarval Commercial Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC894DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Aggarwal Commercial Corporation, Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the importer, filed appeal before the Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 on January 27, 1983 against the Order dated 17th of January, 1983, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The importer had simultaneously filed a stay petition which was accepted by the Tribunal vide its order No. B-23/83 dated 14th of February, 1983. The Tribunal, granting stay for a period of three months or till the final disposal of the appeal filed, directed early hearing and that is how the matter has come before us out of turn.2. The adjudication by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) Bombay dated 16th of December 1981 was a common order in respect of the importer, M/s. Chhaganlal & Sons, Bombay, M/s. Raj Industries, Bombay as also M/s. Madanlal & Co., again of Bombay. The Collector's order as mentioned in the above para is also a common order, as given in the annexure, which we lik...
Carew and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC899DTri(Delhi)
1. The controversy in this case emanates from rejection of the refund application filed by the appellant, namely Carew & Co. Ltd., Rosa (U P.) under the provisions of section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and has arisen as a result of demand raised by the Central Excise Authorities in respect of "bagasse" consumed by the appellant in their sugar manufacturing factory during the period 1-3-1975 to 29-4-1975.2. The facts as set out in the grounds of revision indicate that the Company, during the course of manufacture of sugar in their factory, used sugarcane as raw material and while extracting juice, the fibrous material comes out in a moist condition, known as "bagasse". The contention of the appellant is that this material is more or less a waste product and has no or very little value and as such is stored in the open in the factory premises so that after it dries up, it can be used as fuel in the boilers, which user is pleaded to be as a convenient mode of destr...
Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1816DTri(Delhi)
2. This is a revision application to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 13IB) against the order-in-appeal No. C. 3/2121/81, dated 27.8.81, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras.3. In this case the appellants claimed that the hoses imported by them were assessable as components chargeable to Customs duty at 40% under heading 84.23 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Counter-vailing duty of 8% applicable to item 68 of the C.E.T. will consequented relief.Their claim had been rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs as unsubstantiated.4. Shri Ramaseshan, on behalf of the appellants, produced catalogue with drawings of the hoses imported by them which clearly brings out that the goods in issue were hoses with fittings exclusively meant for use on Crawler Tractors/Bulldozers. Shri Ramaseshan further drew attention to the certificate given by the Rubber Institute of India, Kottayam to establish that the hoses imported were ma...
Krishnan Dev Puri Vs. Union of India and Other
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ197Del
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. On the conclusion of the hearing of this letters patent appeal, we had orally ordered that the appeal was dismissed but with no order as to costs. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are given below. 2. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in Punjab National Bank Limited on 9th May, 1940. According to the averments made in the writ petition his appointment was made by then Staff Controller. With effect from 1st April, 1946 he was promoted as a Supervisor and thereafter he was promoted as an Accountant with effect from 12th October, 1957. In March, 1959 he was reverted to the post of Supervisor but subsequently with effect from 1st July, 1967 he was again promoted to the post of Accountant. Between 1959 and 1974, five punishments were awarded to the appellant. These punishments were : 1. 14.9.1959 - One graded increment withheldon account of negligence.2. 25.10.1960 - Reverted as Supervisor forirregularities committed byyou at B. O. Siliguri.3. 4.11.1968 - Wa...
Krishan Dev Puri Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT72; 1984LabIC532; 1984(1)SLJ68(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) On the conclusion of the hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal, we had orally ordered that the appeal was dismissed but with no order as to costs. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are given below. (2) The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab National Bank Limited on 9th May, 1940. According to the averments made in the writ petition, his appointment was made by the then Staff Controller. With effect from 1st April, 1946 he was promoted as a Supervisor and thereafter he was promoted as an Accountant with effect from 12th October, 1957. In March. 1959 he was reverted to the post of Supervisor but subsequently, with effect from 1st July, 1967, he was again promoted to the post of Accountant. (3) Between 1959 and 1974, five punishments were awarded to the appellant. These punishments were as follows' : '1. 14.9.59. One graded increment withheld on account of negligence. (4) 25.10.60 Reverted as Supervisor for irregularities committed by you at B.O....
B.R. Herman and Mohatta India Ltd. Vs. Ashok Rai and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-20-1983
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas61(Delhi); 1983(2)Crimes310; 24(1983)DLT15; 1983(5)DRJ71; (1984)ILLJ189Del; 1983RLR487
Aggarwal, J.(1) This appeal by M/s. B.R. Herman and Mohatta India Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') is against the order of Shri Bhola Dutt, Metropolitan Magistrate, by which he dismissed the complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 by the company against Ashok Rai.(2) On 10th December 1980 the Company filed a complaint against Ashok Rai under Section 630 of the Companies Act alleging that the company on 15th November 1971 had employed Ashok Rai in its project of manufacturing scooters and in that capacity the respondent was permitted to use and occupy a portion of the premises at 22 Ferozeshah Road, that the employment of Ashok Rai was terminated by the company on or about 11th October 1976 and that after the termination of the services the Manager of the Delhi Office of the complainant company on several occasions requested Ashok Rai to vacate the premises but he had been assuring to do so but has not vacated the premises till date and that instead of vacating the...
Shri Nathulal Ramkishan Saraf Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1260TriDel
1. This matter originally was a revision petition which has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and is taken up as an appeal for consideration.2. The grievance of the Appellant is that gold ornaments weighing 2253.500 gms. were ordered to be confiscated with an option for redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 15,000. In the appeal it was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that he was bound by law to declare his own ornaments and not ornaments of his wife.According to the Appellant the ornaments seized belonged to the wife and parents of the Appellant who is a partner of a firm. He also averred that ornaments found at the residential premises of the Appellant were not possessed, owned or controlled by the partners of the firm and, therefore, they need not have been included in the declaration under Section 16(7) of the Gold (Control) Act. They also submitted that merely because of a technical failure to comply with Section 16(7) of the Act relating to declaration ...
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1729DTri(Delhi)
1. The present order disposes of the two captioned appeals which involved identical issues. These appeals had been originally filed before the Central Government as Revision Applications as those have come on transfer to this Tribunal, under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if they were appeals presented before it.2. The goods in relation to which the dispute in the present appeals has arisen are two consignments of "Diamonds impregnated grinding wires". The Customs authorities at Madras assessed them to duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Schedule at 100% ad valorem (basic customs duty) plus 20% ad valorem (auxiliary duty) plus 15% (additional-countervailing-customs duty). After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the appellants filed refund claims before the Assistant Collector on the ground that the goods were correctly a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »