Delhi Court October 1984 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.
Girdhari Lal Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-1984
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ87
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this Writ Petition Shri Girdhari Lal, partner of M/s. Jagjit Singh Girdhari Lal, petitioner No.1 and M/s. Jagjit Singh Girdhari Lal, licensed gold dealer, petitioner No. 2, are seeking [quashing of the order of confiscation of the primary gold and gold ornaments and of imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 500.00 on petitioner No. 1, under Rule 126-M and Rule 126-L (16) of the defense of India Rules 1962 (herein called 'the Rules')]. After adjudication the impugned order, copy Annexure 'A' was passed on 26th March, 1967, by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs. The appeal filed by the petitioners against that order was dismissed by the Gold Control Administrator vide his order dated 9th June, 1969, copy Annexure 'B'. The petitioners filed a revision petition against it which was dismissed by the Government of India vide its order dated 5th June, 1970, copy Annexure 'C'. Thereafter, the present Writ Petition was filed on various grounds, one of them be...
Mould and Dies Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC66Tri(Delhi)
1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay by his order dated 30-12-1979 held that the goods after teeth-cutting operation (that is, one of the items of manufacturing processes) could not be held to be excisable. The products after teeth- cutting operation were not finished products to attract duty. He, therefore, withdrew the show-cause-cMw-demand notice issued by the Range Superintendent. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reviewed the order and on 4-2-1984, he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and ordered payment of the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,71,242.51 P. He held that the process of teeth-cutting, brought into existence a new item which was altogether different in shape and size as against the raw materials and the process of manufacture was complete under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants had preferred this appeal.On behalf of the Appellants Mr. Gopal Prasad, Consultant, a...
Aggarwal Commercial Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT673TriDel
1. The question for decision in this case is whether stamping foils are entitled to assessment at the rate of 40% under Serial No. 12 of Notification No. 29-Cus./79, dated 10-2-79.2. None appeared for the appellants. A telegram has been received from Shr Balani, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, pointing out that the issue involved in this matter has already been decided in CEGAT Order No. D-11/82 dated 4-1-1983. The relevant order relates to Allibhoy Mahmood v. Collector of Customs, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 385 (CEGAT)]. This fact has also been re-iterated in a written submission by Shri Balani in which he has also stated that an appeal on similar issue, relating to P.K. leather cloth being entitled to the benefit of assessment under Notification No. 29/79, dated 10-2-1979, by virtue of being embellishments for footwear, has been allowed to the same appellants, vide CEGAT Order No. D-220/83 dated 21-4-1983.3. Shri Sunderrajan, JDR, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, agreed that ...
P.S. Bedi and Others Vs. Registrar of Companies, Delhi, and Haryana
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas1061(Delhi); ILR1985Delhi260
D.R. Khanna, J.1. The present case somewhat brings out how clubs which are other wise places of recreation and relaxation get converted into hot-beds of group rivalries. Whether they are the result of one group or the other monopolising their hold over the entire affairs is difficult to say. In the present case, there are circumstances pointing towards that, though exaggeration of insignificant matters by the other side is also there. 2. This petition under section 633(2) of the Companies Act was moved by some members of the managing committee of the Chelmsford club in which they stated that there were apprehensions that the Registrar of Companies was likely to prosecute them under various provisions of the Companies Act and, thereforee, he should be restrained from doing so. It was claimed that there had been no acts of negligence, breach of duty, etc., on their part and in the circumstances they should not be made to undergo the rigour of baseless prosecution. This petition was moved...
Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Consortia of Engine ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: 1987(1)ARBLR354(Delhi); ILR1985Delhi392; 1985RLR157
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioner and respondent No. 1entered into an agreement dated 14th January, 1977 for execution of certain works namely Ardiya (Handlan) Housing Project, Kuwait, Sh : 'Construction of 200 dwelling Units and Infrastructure Works at Kuwait'. the agreement contained clause No. 28 which is the arbitration clause which could be invoked by either party in case of differences arising between them under the contract and both the parties were to appointed one arbitrator each and. the arbitration was to be in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). (2) On or about 12th October, 1983 respondent No. 1 invoking the aforesaid arbitration clause appointed respondent No. 2 Shri D. Dutt as its arbitrator and called upon the petitioner to appoint its own arbitrator within the statutory period of 15 days. Vide letter dated 24th January, 1984 respondent No. 1 appointed respondent No. 2 Shri D. Dutt as the sole ar...
Harish Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC121Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved of rejection of their refund claim for Rs. 3401.60 by both the lower authorities.2. Brief facts of the case, which are not disputed, are as follows. The appellants were a powerloom unit without spinning or processing plant.They were permitted to discharge their duty liability in respect of unprocessed cotton fabrics produced by them under the special procedure known as compounded levy scheme which was comprised in Rules 961 to 96MMMMM of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This procedure required the appellants to pay a certain sum in advance for a fixed period following. The second Proviso to Rule 96 J provided for adjustment of payment already made (recovery from or refund to the appellants, as the case may be) in case the rate of compounded levy was altered by the Government during the permitted period of manufacture. Rule 96MMMMM provided for similar adjustment of the payment already made in case the factory ceased to work or reverted to the normal proc...
Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Jai Bhagwan Khari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes863; 27(1985)DLT82
Wad, J. (1) The contempt proceedings were initiated under S. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act against Jai Bhagwan Khan on a reference made by Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi. It was stated in the reference that on 4-1-1980 he was disposing of an application filed by one Shri Harbans Lal under Order Xxi, Rule 100. Civil Procedure Code (Civil Misc. 61179) against Shri Gurbachan Singh. While the Judge was dictating the order, the alleged contemnor Jai Bhagwan Khari appeared in the Court. He filed a special power of attorney purportedly executed in his favor by Gurbachan Singh. The contemnor interfered with the proceedings and addressing the learned Judge said 'you are in collusion with Harbans Lal and you have accepted money from Harbans Lal.' Thereafter he left the Court. The proceedings were initiated in 1980 and we are required to dispose it of after lapse of four years due to deliberate and willful obstacles created by the alleged contemnor in the disposal of these proc...
Nectarine Pharmacy Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC238Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer is being treated as an appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, New Delhi, in his Order No.1407/78 dated 1-9-78, the appellants have preferred this revision.2. The appellants imported a Markem capsule and tablet printing machine from M/s. Markem Corporation, Keene, N.H. USA. They presented a bill of entry No. 11539 dated 16-11-76 at Customs Air-cargo Unit, Palam, New Delhi. They sought clearance of the machine in question under Customs Tariff Head No. 84.34 assessable at 40%. The Assistant Collector assessed the item under Tariff Heading No. 84.59(1) at 60%. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Collector who confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector. Shri Prem Sehgal, Managing Partner of the Appellants firm submitted that the machine under import should have been classified under the most specific heading 84.34. The tablets and capsules printing machine can print...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax, Delhi Vs. Mr. Justice Avadh Beh ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR441(Delhi); 1985RLR115
D.K. Kapur, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming that a question of law arises out of the Tribunal's order. The question claimed is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to the exemption claimed under section 23(3) ?' 2. The Tribunal had refused to make a reference under section 256(1) on the ground that in a similar case of Shri K. K. Jhalani, it had been held that the exemption was to be given and, it appears, that the decision of the Tribunal holding that no question of law arose was confirmed by a Bench of this court in I.T.C. No. 160 of 1980 decided on May 3, 1982. 3. Inasmuch as there is some slight difference on facts, we would like to decide this case by an independent judgment. The assessed is a sitting judge of this court. He has his own property at 419, Esplanade Road, Delhi, which is a residential house kept vacant ...
Devendar Srivastava and anr. Vs. Alfred James and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1984
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi38
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This case is a tussle over a child. The parents have filed a petition under Article 226, of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. On the other side are ranged a couple to whom the mother gave the custody of the child soon after it was born. How that came about is a tale of woe engendered by the mores of our society. (2) In or about August 1982, Devender Kaur obtained employment as a lady health visitor with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. She was about 25 years old at that time. There, she met Ajay Srivastava who was employed as a medical laboratory technician. He was about 28. A liaison soon developed between the two, and Devender Kaur became pregnant. She was delivered of a boy on 30th May 1983 at Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. (3) According to Devender Kaur, when her mother came to know of the pregnancy, she was horrified by the thought of the social stigma they would incur from the birth of an illegitimate child. In order to hide the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »