Delhi Court February 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.
Ashok Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT107TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the order dated 10-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur.2. On 10-3-1980, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that their clearances during 1978-79 exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs, that they have availed exemption under Notification No. 71/78 without filing a declaration and that a duty of Rs. 25,000/- towards B.E.D. and Rs. 1,250/- S.E.D. was payable by them. The Collector passed orders in Order No. 15/80-CE (C. No. V(33-B)1515/l/CE.II/79 dated 8-11-80) directing the appellants to pay the appropriate duty. In their appeal to Central Board of Excise & Customs, the appellants contended that they have been filing classification lists which were approved by the department and that the non-filing of the declaration was only a technical error. The Board held that the time-limit applicable for the demand of duty should be six months under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, and since the Collector h...
Balwindar Singh Vs. Delhi Administory and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi379; 1984RLR302
Prakash Narain, J.(1) A large number of petitions have been filed in this' Court which raise the identical questions of law. In some petitions rule nisi has been issued while in some others notice to show cause why rule nisi be not issued has been ordered. There are still some more which had been directed to stand over. We ordered listing of a good many petitions on the same day so that we may have the benefit of hearing as many counsel as possible on behalf of the petitioners.(2) By and large, the facts of all the cases are that same and the points' of law raised are identical. We, thereforee, proceed to notice the facts of this case and in the light of those facts decide the question of law.(3) 'THE petitioner owns a Video set (commonly known as V. C. R.V .C. P.) and also a Television set. He has taken out commercial licenses for the Video set and the television set as opposed to licenses for domestic purposes. He has also paid the higher license fee postulated for taking out a comme...
Kailash Chand Goyal Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1039; 1984(1)Crimes703; 25(1984)DLT241; 1984RLR278
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas Corpus for release of the petitioner Kailash Chand Goyal. The detenu has been detained under the order passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) read with section 2(c) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The impugned order was passed on 15th October, 1983. (2) The grounds of detention bearing the same date were served on the detenu on 21st October, 1983 when he was lodged in central jail, Tihar. One of the grounds is that the detenu in his statement made under section 132 the Income-tax Act on 30th November 1982, admitted having unauthorisedly and for profit diverted essential commodities wh...
Abdul Hamid Khan Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1984(1)Crimes706; 25(1984)DLT233
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioner Abdul Hamid Khan was convicted for offences punishable under Section 304-A/279 Indian Penal Code . both by the trial court of Shri J. M. Malik then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as also by the first appellate court of Shri B. B. Gupta Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi. The petitioner was sentenced by the learned trial court to -undergo R. 1. for one year and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 under S. 304-A Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further R. 1. for 9 moths. On appeal Shri B. B. Gupta, Addl. Sessions Judge, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to 6 months for the offence under S. 304A. Indian Penal Code . retaining the remaining part of the sentence including one month's R. 1. u/s 279 J. P. C. (2) The prosecution alleged that the petitioner being the driver of D.T.C. Bus No. Dlp 85 on route No. 416 was driving this bus on 15-11-1979 from Khanpur Depot to Lajpat...
Laxman T. Sajnani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ482; 1984(1)Crimes528; 25(1984)DLT251
Aggarwal, J. (1) By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner Laxman T.Sajnani has challenged the legality and virus of his detention dated 10th June 1983 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). Shri Kapil Sibbal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that against the order of detention on 7th July 1983 the petitioner made a representation to the Government of Maharashtra and the said representation was considered and rejected after a long allay of 82 days on 26th September 1983 and this circumstance alone vitiates the order of detention. (2) We find force in this contention. (3) The petitioner in Paragraph 20 of the petition alleged that he made a representation against the order of detention to respondent 2 No. the Maharashtra Government on 7th July 1983 and the respondent vide order dated 27th September 1983 rejected the representation; that the rejection of the r...
Orient General Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT526(Del)
S.S. Chadha, J.1. The issues raised in the present petition are identical to issues dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, decided on October 20, 1980 reported in 1981 E.L.T. 284. The Division Bench has held that the Central Excise Tariff Item 33 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 during the relevant period, regulators were not includible under the goods described as electric fans till June 18, 1977 when the said Tariff item was amended. 2. Miss Rekha Sharma, learned counsel for the Government points out that the question of inclusion of regulators in the electric fans for purposes of levy of excise duty was considered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Hyderabad v. Government of India & others 1982 E.L.T. 378 wherein it was held, since the regulator was inrisponsable part of fan and was treated as such by I.S.I. specifications and in Trade parlance...
Amarnath Vs. Swatantra Bharat Mills and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ39Del
1. This petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, brings to light yet another unfortunate case where the employer has been able to evade decision of the industrial dispute on merits for over 15 years by adopting the devices similar to those noticed by the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration 1983 2 L.L.J. 425 2. Amar Nath, the concerned workman, was employed with Swatantra Bharat Mills for the last over 20 years on the date of the reference. The case of the managements is that he was showing less efficiency during the period from 1st December, 1965 to 13th December, 1965. He was called by Shri S. B. Saxena, shift in charge at about 12.45 a.m. on 14th December, 1965, to explain the reasons for showing less efficiency. When asked, the workman pointing out towards Mr. Mathur and Munshi Ram, who were also present, said that 'in salon se puchho'. When he was advised by the Shift In-charge to behave properly, he used filthy abuses against those persons and t...
The State Government of Mysore Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi260; 25(1984)DLT335
Sachar, J.(1) These two appeals viz. Lpa 2611976 and Lpa 11011975 arise out of the same judgment and will be decided by this common judgment.(2) This appeal (LPA 26] 1976) is directed against the order of the learned single Judge by which he issued a writ of mandamus directing appellant State of Karnataka and respondent No. 1. Union of India to reconsider the question of granting of mining lease over the area in question afresh in accordance with law. By the impugned order the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 3, M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. against an order by which its application for the grant of mining license had been rejected by the State of Kamataka and Union of India. and instead mining lease had been granted in favor of respondent No. 2, M/s. Bharat Parikh and Co.(3) Parliament has passed an Act to provide for the regulation of mines and the development of mineral under the control of the Union being 'The Mines and Minerals (Regulatio...
Delhi Airport Porters Labour Contract and Construction Society Vs. Int ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR352
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The International Airports Authority of India (herein the Authority) granted a contract to the Delhi Airport Porters Labour Contract & Construction Society Ltd. (herein the petitioner) having 110 members, for porter age service for the incoming and outgoing passengers in the domestic side of the Palam Airport upon a fixed monthly license fee of Rs. 48,000.00. Initially the period of license was from 24.11.79 to 23.11.80. It was extended from 24.11.80 to 23.11.81, but the formal contract was executed on 11.2.81. It was terminal at any time by the authority by giving three months notice in writing without assigning any reason. When the agreement is permanent of the structure, installations and equipments and all other things whatsoever brought by the licensee shall be removed by the licensee and the premises shall be left open to the authority without claiming any compensation whatsoever. A further condition of the license was that the provisions of the Public Premises (...
Nazir Ahmed Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi245; 25(1984)DLT346; 1984(7)DRJ60; 1984RLR395
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The facts of this appeal are that the property bearing No. 2929 Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi consisting of three rooms, measuring 9'x11',8'x11' and 11'x11', were in the tenancy of the appellant wherein he was running a grocer's shop for 25 years. These were demolished during the emergency in 1975-76. An assurance was however, given to him that an alternative accommodation will bs provided. On the basis of that assurance the appellant was entitled to an allotment of 40 sq. mtr. but he was allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (herein D.D.A.), 10 sq. meter of land at Shahzada Bagh, Phase-1, Plot No. 280. The D.D.A. states that besides 10 sq. mtrs. of land he was allotted three houses one in his name and two in the names of his sons each comprising two rooms with store, kitchen and lavatory. The area covered by each tenement was 25 sq. mtr. The appellant, however, does not seem to be satisfied and filed an application on 22nd May, 1979 under Order 33 Rules I an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »