Delhi Court July 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.
G.D. Industrial Engineers Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT(1994)TriDel
1. The question that arise for decision in this and two other Appeals (Appeal Nos. 163 and 164 of 1982), by three partnership firms are- (a) (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the context of the language of Notification No. 89/79, the benefit of exemption therein is to be availed on the basis of value of the goods cleared from each of the three factories severally owned by the Appellant in each of the Appeals; (hereinafter called the "Appellants"); (ii) Notwithstanding their separate ownership each by one of the Appellants, should the clearances from all three of the factories be aggregated and cumulatively considered for extension of the benefit of the notification, since the partners of all three firms are common; (iii) Does the expression "by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories" occurring in the aforesaid notification, warrant the integration of the totality of the goods cleared by each of the Appellants for the purposes of the not...
S.C. Gupta Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi103; 1984(2)SLJ392(Delhi)
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The petitioner S. C. Gupta was employed in the respondent. Food Corporation of India (the Corporation). At the relevant time he was Manager (Costs). A manager is the head Of his division. So in the Cost Division he was the head. With him another officer of equal rank, Dne S. K. Khosia, was also working as Manager (Accou'nts) - He was also the head of his division. There was inter-s'ervice jealousy and rivalry between them. The Government of Zambia advertised some posts for Group Accountant, Area Accountant, Cost Accountant, Expenditure Accountant, Financial Accountant etc. for their country. Both Khosla's and Gupta's names were sponfibred for those posts. But none was taken fOr any of the advertised posts. Khosla, however, managed to get an assignment of Fmancial Cctotroller in the National Agricultural Marketing Board of Zambia. He left India and joined the post under the Zambian Government in 1977.(2) A letter dated 1-2-1977 purporting to be written from l...
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. C.R.E., Wood and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi138; 1983(5)DRJ362; 1983RLR745
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery against defendant No. I a Limited Company and others in 1974. On 6th April, 1977 a winding up order was passed against the defendant No. I. The proceedings in the suit were stayed sine die vide order dated 21st July, 1977. On 7th August, 1977 Shri P.L. Gay defendant No. 10 died. The plaintiff made application to the Company Court for leave to proceed with the present suit and permission was granted on 19th March, 1980.(2) The present application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 10 was made on 24th November, 1978. Mr. Seth submits that the proceedings in the suit were stayed sine die on 21st July, 1977 and thus no suit was pending before the Court till the grant of permission by the Company Court to proceed against defendant No. 1. He further submits that as the permission was granted on 19th March, 1980 the suit shall be deemed to...
Star Textile Engg. Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2036TriDel
1. This case involves classification of Mother Rollers imported by the appellants for manufacture of screens. They were originally assessed by the Department under heading 84.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The classification to 73.33/40 CTA. The appellant's case was that the goods were correctly classifiable under heading 84.60 CTA. The Appellate Collector however, changed the classification to heading 84.59(1) but later issued a separate letter to the appellants saying that he had done so by mistake and that the appellants may file a revision application against his order. Before us, the appellants prayer was that the goods be classified under heading 84.60 as per their original stand or under heading 84.59(2) as advised by the Appellate Collector later in his letter to them. They added that the Department had since issued a Tariff Advice classifying the goods under heading 84.60 and all current imports of Mother Rollers were being assessed under this heading only. The Departmen...
Smt. Lilawati Chhawaghharia and Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1494DTri(Delhi)
1. Shrimati Lilawati Chhawachharia (hereinafter called Smt. Lilawati) (appellant in appeal No. 18/78) and Shri Shankar Prasad Chhawachharia (hereinafter called Shri Shankar Prasad) (appellant in appeal No.19/78) filed appeals before the Gold Control Administrator, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue against the Order-in-Original No. 18/77 (Gold) & 19/77 (Gold) dated 17-12-77 passed by Shri P. Roy, Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur and these appeals stand transferred to this Tribunal under Section 82(K)(2) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter called Act) to be disposed of as if these were appeals presented before it. One common order is passed in the two appeals.2. The appellants, Smt. Lilawati, is the daughter-in-law of appellant Shri Shankar Prasad. Shri Vijay Kumar is the husband of Mrs. Lilawati.Shri Anupam Kumar and Shri Ajay Kumar are the sons of Shri Shankar Prasad. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi is the wife of Shri Shankar Prasad.3. Gold Control Officer...
Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2027TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 22-7-80 against order-in-Appeal No.C3/2513/1978 dated 23-2-80, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, has been transferred by the Govt. of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Sec. 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellants are an industrial concern manufacturing dry cell batteries. They imported 651 packages of carbon rods, which were cleared under B/E 'NO. C. 300 dated 6-9-78 on assessment to duty under item 85 18/27(6). Subsequently, a notice was issued by the Customs authorities u/s 28(1) stating that an amount of Rs. 11,803.50 was short-levied since the goods were correctly assessable under sub-item (1) of item 85.18/27. The Assistant Collector of Customs did not accept the contentions of the Appellants and held that the battery is technically an electrolyser and the carbon electrodes should be assessed under sub-heading (1), since item 85.18/27(6) is only for electrodes used in furnaces, and he confirmed the dema...
Veena Vs. Makhan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi187; 1983(6)DRJ26; 1984RLR43
M.L. Jain, J. (1) No one is present on behalf of the respondent-though the case for long has been on board and was listed at No. I today. I have heard the .learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.(2) The parties were married on 24-6-1977. The respondent husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of desertion. The wife filed a counter claim for divorce under Section 23-A of the Act.(3) The husband's petition was dismissed on 6-8-1982.(4) The claim of the wife was also disallowed and her prayer for divorce was dismissed on 28-8-1982. She has appealed.(5) The wife's allegations of cruelty are as follows :- (1)She was mal-treated and beaten because money was demanded of her which she could not provide ; (2)She had taken a job in Kataria Nursing Home but the husband saw to it that her services were terminated ; (3)The husband committed theft of jewellery worth Rs. 15000.00 from her parents' house...
Rajinder Kumar Vs. Ravel Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT387; 1983RLR705
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the tenant M directed against the judgment dated 5-2-1981 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby his appeal was dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that he had failed to comply with the order passed under S. 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act inasmuch as he has deposited the rent for the month of April, 1977 on 16th of May, 1977 while he was expected to deposit the game on or before 15th of May, 1977. The second ground being that the appeal filed by him against the order of Additional Rent Controller was incompetent inasmuch as he had failed to implead co-tenants within the period of limitation. (2) The respondent-landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the tenant under S. 14(1) provisos (a), (c) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is not necessary to deal with Clauses (c) and (j) because the same were decided against the landlord and were not pressed before the Rent Control Tribunal. During the course of...
Accumax Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2029TriDel
1. The Revision Application dated 8th July, 1982 filed against Order No. S/49-1070/79R dated 7-4-80 has been transferred to the Tribunal by the Govt. of India for disposal in terms of Section 131(B)(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. A Goulder Mikron Make 2A Rolling Gear Tester was imported and assessed to duty under Heading 90.16(2) under B/E 1971/648 dated 23-1-1979. Thereafter, it was claimed that the goods should be reassessed in terms of Notification No. 49, dated 1-3-78 at a lower rate of duty. The Asstt. Collector held that the gear testers mentioned in the notification are Hypoid Gear Tester, Gear Profile and Helix Tester, Bevel Gear, Blank Checker, Gear Eccentricity Tester and Hypoid Gear, Tooth Specific Tester. Since the Gear Eccentricity Tester is described separately from the Rolling Gear Tester in the book of Engg.Metrology by Shri R.K. Jain, they are not the same. Hence, Rolling Gear Tester which is not specified in the notification, is not eligible to the concessional rate ...
Sohan Lal Vs. Krishan Ghander Ramesh Ghander and Brothers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT305; 1983RLR622
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) A petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the respondent and was tried on she Original Side of this Court as Suit No.123-A of 1980, which was decided by Avadh Behari,J. on 24th August 1981, who held that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and the matter had to be referred to the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association for arbitration and award.(2) THE disputes between the parties arose out of dealings between them in the period April, 1978 to September, 1979. The seller was a firm carrying on cloth business at Delhi, the purchaser was a cloth merchant of Meerut. The seller is a partnership firm, while the buyer is a proprietory concern. 84 bills were issued by the seller each of which had a printed term to the effect that the goods were sold subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. There was no express arbitration agreement set out in the bills. The question raised before the learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »