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.
ishwar Devi and anr. Vs. Elite Electrical Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-12-1983
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT242
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The plaintiffs' claim in this suit a declaration that the defendants are illegally and unauthorisedly occupying the area on the terrace floor/first floor of property No 5332, Chandrawal, Road Subzi Mandi, Delhi, as shown yellow in the plan attached with the plaint including room 'H' as shown in the site plan and that the construction on the terrace floor/first floor as raised by the defendants or any of them is illegal. The plaintiffs' claim in addition a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the unauthorised construction on the first floor/terrace floor of the said property. The plaintiffs also claim a decree for delivery of possession of the portion on the first floor/terrace floor of the suit property. The relief further claimed is for ..he recovery of Rs. 10,300.00 being the mesne profits and a decree for pendente lite and future interest @10% per annum. (2) The plaint says this. The plaintiffs are the owners and landlords of entire...
Pearlite Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC670DTri(Delhi)
2. The dispute in this case relates to the demand for differential duty which the appellants have been called upon to pay under rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period from 21-8-76 to 14-7-77 in respect of steel wire manufactured by them from duty paid steel wire rods. During the major part of this period, upto 17-6-77 to be exact, exemption notification No. 67/73-CE fixed the effective rate of duty for the relevant category of steel rods and steel wire at Pvs. 165/- per m.t. The proviso to this notification gave a further reduction of Rs. 75/- per m.t. if the rods and wire were manufactured out of specified types of scraps etc. with the aid of electric furnace. In other words, in such a case the effective duty payable both on rods and wire was only Rs. 90/- per m.t. (Rs. 165 minus Rs. 75). The show cause notice issued to the appellants states that they obtained their rods from M/s Mukand Iron and Steel Ltd., Bombay, who paid the duty of Rs. 90/~ per m.t. on such rod...
Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC673DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants, at the outset, stated that their old name Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. had been changed to Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vide the certificate dated 20-8-1979 of the Registrar of Companies, U.P., Kanpur.3. The dispute in this case relates to the question whether brass barrels of torches were classifiable as brass pipes and tubes under item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff during the period from 1-4-1971 to 31-1-1972 or not. The appellants showed a sample of the brass barrel in question and stated that these goods were manufactured by the appellants for captive consumption, that they were in unfinished condition, were not at all marketed by them and were, in fact, not marketable and hence they were not goods so as to attract the levy of central excise duty. They added that these brass barrels were commercially not known as pipes and tubes nor did they perform any of the accepted functions of pipes and tubes, namely, conveying of gas or fluid. They relied on AIR 19...
T.T. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC676DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek assessment of electric pressure cooker (brand name : Prestige Electromatique Pressure Cooker) under Item 54 of the Central Excise Tariff which is specific for pressure cookers. In the alternative, they pray for its assessment under Item 33C of the Tariff relating to domestic electrical appliances read With exemption notification No. 33/69-CE on the ground that electric cookers are commercially a different product from pressure cookers. Failing both these prayers, they made yet another alternative plea for assessment under Item 68 of the Tariff but did not seriously press for it during the arguments. The Department's objection to assessing the subject electric pressure cooker under Item 54 is that according to the statutory definition of pressure cooker as contained in this item, a pressure cooker should work with an external heat source while the subject pressure cooker has an internal heat source in the form of an electric element placed inside the cooking vess...
Sundaram-clayton Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC966DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants, instead of appearing personally, have sent a telegram requesting that their appeal may be decided on merits. On going through the records, we find that the appellants imported guide plates which are a part of pressure reducer valve used in the air-brake system of commercial vehicles. These were assessed to customs duty under heading 87.04/06 of the Tariff as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. The appellants seek their re-assessment under heading 84.61(2) as parts of pressure reducing valves. The Department's objection to their request is that heading 84.61 covers 'Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vats and the like, including pressure reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves:" which means valves for use on stationary appliances and machines while the subject goods were parts of valves of motor vehicles. On careful consideration of the matter, we agree with the Department's point and hold that the goods we...
Kamavaram Veeranna Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ106b
ORDER1. On 15-5-1967, the Inspector of Central Excise, Gulbarga checked the petitioner Veeranna a licensed goldsmith (since then dead) and recovered from his person four Kadagas of gold weighing 40 tolas worth Rs. 7,000/-. His books of accounts were also seized on 21-11-1967. Veeranna deposed that the said Kadagas were got manufactured eight to ten years back by his father and that they were kept as heirloom. But he needed money and brought the Kadagas from Raichur to Gulbarga for sale. Since he could not sell them at the price which the Serifs offered him, he was carrying them back home, when he was intercepted. 2. A notice was issued to him on 27-11-1967 stating that the petitioner had contravened the Rr. 126-G(1), 126-H(1), 126-H(2)(b) and 126-1(2)(g) of the defense of India Rules, 1962 and directed him to show cause why penalty under R. 126-1(16) of the said Rules be not imposed and why the said gold be not confiscated under R. 126-M 3. On 11-12-1967 deceased Veeranna replied that ...
ArwIn Ricky Warvick Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT732(Del)
1. The petitioner challenges the order of the revisional authority which has affirmed the order of the Appellate Collector. 2. The petitioner was posted abroad and as usual when a person comes back he brings certain necessary electronic gadgets which are not so easily available in this country. So he brought with him amongst others (1) T.V. (2) Video, (3) music system and (4) Kenwood Chef with which we are concerned. 3. The plea of the petitioner was that he had purchased T.V., V.C.R. and music system in April, 1981. He had produced the necessary receipt. He also showed the repair receipts for T.V./Video made in August, 1981 is support of this claim for user over one year, as per T.R. Rules. The Assistant Collector refused his claim for all the items. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector accepted the case of the petitioner with regard to T.V. and V.C.R. as he was of the view that they showed that they have been used. He, thereforee gran...
Magnum Films Vs. Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi162; 2003(5)DRJ103
Sultan Singh, J. (1) THE plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing of the agreement and reference of the disputes to arbitration relating to agreement dated 3rd May, 1982. The plaintiffs also filed an application (I.A. No. 1255 of 1983) under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act for an injunction restraining the defendant from interrupting or interfering with the continuous screening of the picture 'Nikaah' at Golcha Cinema till it collects a minimum sum of Rs. 58,186.43 per week and to continue its running on payment of Rs 46,549.15 only per week. On 22nd March, 1983 summons of the suit and notice of the application were issued to the defendant for 19th April, 1983 and ex parte injunction was issued restraining the defendant from in any manner interrupting or interfering with the continuous screening of the picture 'Nikaah' at Golcha Cinema, Delhi till the box office collections of the picture cover the minimum hold over figure of Rs. 58,186.43 per week. ...
Krishan Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 23(1983)DLT442
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) Krishan Kumar, the appellant herein, was tried in the court of an Additional Sessions Judge on the charge of murdering Ashok Kumar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. Against his conviction and sentence the accused has come in appeal.(2) The deceased, the appellant, and the two alleged eye witnesses,namely, P.W.3Ravinder Singh and P.W.4 Rajesh Vaid alias Dabba resided in Sector 12, R.K.Puram. The deceased and Ravinder Singh were neighbours The house number of Ravinder Singh is 842 and that of the deceased was 843. The appellant and Rajesh Vaid resided in the same locality. They were students and friends.(3) On 13/01/1979 at about 6 p.m. P.W.3 met the deceased at the bus stop of D.T.C. near Sangam Cinema. The deceased wanted to accompany P.W.3 but P.W.3 told him that he was not going to his house but was going to the goggle shop beyond Sangam Cinema. The deceased toldP.W.3 that he would ...
Kamavaram Veeranns Vs. Union of India and Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ2284; 1983(5)DRJ106; 1983RLR441
M.L. Jain, J.(1) On 15.7.1967, the Inspector of Central Excise Gulbarga checked the petitioner Veeranna a licensed goldsmith (since then dead) and recovered from his person four Kadgas of gold weighing 40 tolas worth Rs. 7000.00 . His books of accounts were also seized on 21.11.1967. Veeranna deposed that the said Kadagas were got manufactured eight to ten years back by his father and that they were kept as heirloom. But he needed money and brought the Kadagas from Raichur to Gulbarga for sale. Since he could not sell them at the price which the Sarafs offered him, he was carrying them back home, when he was intercepted.(2) A notice was issued to him on 27.11.1967 stating that the petitioner had contravened the Rules 126-G(1), 126-H(1), 126H(2)(b) and 126-1(2)(g) of the defense of India Rules, 1962 and directed him to show cause why a penalty under Rule 126L(l6) of the said Rules be not imposed and why the said gold be not confiscated under Rule 126M.(3) On 11-12-1967 deceased Veeranna...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »