Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 5 of about 89 results (0.021 seconds)Ved Prakash Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ142
Aggarwal, J.1. The petitioner Ved Prakash Gulati by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of his fundamental rights of freedom and privacy by the action of respondent No. 2 in bringing his name on the surveillance register and further by opening his history sheet. The petitioner alleges that for various reasons, the details of which are given in the petition, the respondents and adopted against him a vindictive and hostile attitude. 2. The respondents in reply have denied that the petitioner has been brought on the surveillance register. However, it has not been disputed that an order for maintaining the history sheet of the petitioner has been made. The respondents in Annexure R-1 to the reply have given the details of the criminal cases in which the petitioner is alleged to be involved. The details of the cases are as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sr. FIR Dated Under Police Position No. N...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Starch Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT1681(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of Government of India holding that 'Wet dextrose' is a product which is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 1-E and, thereforee, excise duty is payable thereon when the same is manufactured by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, inter alia, manufactures 'Dextrose Monohydrate' and another product called 'Sorbitol'. According to the impugned order, the petitioner manufactured Dextrose by adopting the following process :- (a) Starch milk is liquified under controlled conditions; (b) The liquified material is subjected to conversion or scarification by help of Chemicals; (c) Saccarified liquid is refined for colour removal and other impurities and then subjected to concentration by evaporation process; (d) Concentrated Liquor is then crystallised; (e) Crystallised material is then subjected to centrifuge process when dextrose crystals and liqui...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Chopra and ors. Vs. Apparels Export Promotion Council
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi717
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for various declarations and injunction. The two reliefs which are now pressed are for declarations that the Election Rules framed by the Executive Committee of the Apparels Export Promotion Council called 'The Rules of Election of the Members of Executive Committee of the Council' arc illegal, null and void and of no effect and that Articles Ii, 33 (in so far as it provides for poll by secret ballot). 38, 40(a) (in so far as it debars the Associate Members or the Institute Members from voting) are void and of no effect. (2) Defendant No. 1, Apparels Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council), is a company limited by guarantee, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) on February 22, 1978 having its registered office at 'Sahyog', 4th Floor, 58 Nehru Place, New Delhi. Since the Council fulfills the conditions laid down in Section 25 of the Act, it has been registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT158
G.C. Jain, J.(1) -THIS appeal is directed against the judgments, dated February 28, 1982 and March 1, 1983, passed by Shri J.D. Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting the appellant Shiv Singh for offences under Sections 279, 338, 303 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days under Section 279, rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default of the payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month under Section 338; rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of the payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months under Section 308; and rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 250.00 and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period o...
Tag this Judgment!Mehra-mehra Vs. Sant Kaur Grewal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi151
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The respondent Dr. (Mrs.) Sant Kaur Grewal filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act) against the appellant Mjs. Mehra-Mehra. The petition was allowed by the Controller Shri J. D. Kapoor on 31st March, 1980. A revision in the High Court was dismissed on 8th December, 1981. While the landlady moved an execution application on 10-12-1981, the ..petitioner preferred special leave petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on 12-3-1982, but stayed execution up to 30-8-1982 provided the tenant filed an undertaking to vacate by the said date and to continue to pay the arrears of future compensation month by month. No such undertaking was filed. Instead, on 16-4-1982 the appellant filed an objection under order 21 Rule 22 read with sections 47 and 151 Civil Procedure Code before Smt. Kanwal Inder who had by now succeeded Shri J. D. Kapoor as Controller. The objectio...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1094TriDel
1. Originally preferred as a Revision Application before the Central Government, on transfer to the Tribunal under section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter called the Act, the matter is being treated as an appeal before the Tribunal and is being disposed of accordingly.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The appellants are manufacturers of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (A.C.S.R.) and of All Aluminium Conductors (A.A.C.). During the relevant time, for some of the products manufactured by the appellants, the Central Government had fixed tariff values under section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Act. The appellants found that it would be more beneficial to them for the purposes of central excise duty to have their goods assessed with reference to value determined under section 4 of the Act rather than with reference to the tariff values fixed by the Government. They contended before the lower authorities that before 1-10-75, during which period the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pfizer Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC808DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants imported aluminium foil laminated with polyethylene film. The goods were assessed under Heading 76.03/04(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and customs duty of 100% plus auxiliary duty of 20% plus countervailing duty of 33.6% was charged thereon. The importers filed an application for refund claiming re-assessment at the rate of 27.5% customs duty plus 5% auxiliary duty. They based their claim on the authority of notification No. 170/79-Cus, dated 24-7-79. The subject goods in this case were imported on 4-5-79, i.e., about 2 1/2 months earlier than the Issue of the notification relied upon by the appellants and the Assistant Collector, therefore, rejected their claim on the ground that the aforesaid notification was effective only from the date of its issue and it could not be applied retrospectively to the subject goods. At the appeal stage, the appellants relied instead on notification No. 67/79-Cus., dated 15-3-79. The Appellate Collector rejected this claim also ...
Tag this Judgment!Spencer and Company Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1356DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application against the Order-in-appeal No.440/81, dated 8-6-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, which has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed therefore it. The appellants are manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68 in their House Furnishing Factory and have claimed exemption from payment of duty on first clearances upto the value of Rs. fifteen lakhs as per Notification No. 89/79, dated 1-3-1979. They have submitted a statement of the total value of capital investment made from time to time on Plant and Machinery in the Housing Furnishing Unit showing the capital investment as Rs. 2,40,501.95. As they were not permitted to avail the exemption under the Notification mentioned above, they were paying duty under protest. Meanwhile they were periodically sending their claims for refund in time. The Lower Authority in the impugned order has held the view that the term 'industrial unit' occ...
Tag this Judgment!Man Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983RLR642
Prakash Narain, J.(1) As the main plank of the arguments, addressed on behalf of the petitioners, is the decision of the Supreme Court in Lic v. D.J. Bahadur : (1981)ILLJ1SC , we may first consider that case. A writ petition u/Art 226 of the Constitution had been filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging a notice dt. 6.5.78 issued by Lic u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and a notification dt. 26.5.78, issued u/s 11(2) of the Act by the Central Gov. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court resulting in an appeal being filed by Lic in the Supreme Court. Another similar petition was pending in the Calcutta High Court which was transferred to the S.C. Both these matters were disposed of together. The challenge before the Allahabad and the Calcutta High Court, was preferred by Class Iii and Class Iv employees who had contended that the impugned order and notification amounted to changing their conditions of service to their detriment vis-a-vis payment to them of bonus to whi...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Dass Vs. Aesthetic Exports Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ364; 1984LabIC209; (1983)IILLJ246Del; 1983RLR782; 1985(1)SLJ577(Delhi)
A.B. Rohatgi, J. (1) The question of award of backwages has been troubling the courts and the legislature. In what cases backwages must be awarded to the workman who is ordered by the Tribunal to be reinstated in service.(2) George Orwell once wrote, ''How right the working classes are to realise that the belly comes before the soul not in the scale of values but in point of time.' One of the most important facts about life is that human beings cannot get on without food, clothing, and shelter. Most modern men regard it as the most important fact of all, and spend most of the waking hours of a brief lifetime in trying to deal with it.(3) These are the facts. The petitioner Sunder Dass was employed by the management of M;s, Asthetic Exports Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. I, as a machine man in their factory in printing section with effect from 16-10-1978 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1100.00 per month as a permanent employee. Previously he was working in another factory. He left that servi...
Tag this Judgment!