Delhi Court July 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Atul Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT542TriDel
1. On 20-1-1984, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Faridabad sent a communication to M/s. Atul Glass Industries Private Limited, Faridabad indicating that under Trade notice No. 5/C.E./80 (Glass mirrors) dated 8-1-1980, mirrors and certain items would merit classification under Item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff and they should thereafter submit L-4 applications under the above tariff item and pay duty accordingly.2. M/s. Atul Glass Industries Private Limited (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) filed Civil Writ Petition No. 106/80 before High Court, Delhi against the said directions. Later, as directed by the High Court in the said petition, they filed an appeal before the Applleat Collector of Central excise and the same was later disposed of by the Collector of Central Excise and the same was later disposed of by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi under his order dated 24-1-1984, whereunder he set aside the directions of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Far...
Nirmala Devi Vs. Virawali and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ211
Malik Sharief-Ud-din, J. (1) The suit property i.e.. House No. 1373 belongs to the defendants and under law and Constitution they can put it to any lawful use. Earlier when defendants were restrained from running the Guest House the main consideration on the basis of which that order was passed was that the defendants were running the Guest House in violation of law of the land and what is not permitted by law cannot be regularised by the court. That chapter is closed. In order to entitle the plaintiff to a restraint order of the kind and quality now asked for she has to show a prima facie case and has also to indicate that there is likelihood of an irreparable injury being caused to her and that the balance of convenience is in her favor. It may, however, be pointed out that the mere existence of a prima facie case by itself will not entitle the plaintiff to a restraint order. The aspects of comparative equities, balance of convenience and irreparable injury also have to be satisfied....
D.D. Sansi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ216
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) By this Petition under.Article 226 of the Constitution of India Shri D.D. Sansi, the petitioner herein, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 23rd June 1976 by the Director General of Civil Aviation removing the petitioner from the service.(2) The facts giving rise to this petition needs to be stated in some detail. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Aircraft Inspector in the Civil Aviation department at Delhi. On 16th January 1974 there was an air-crash at Karnal Aerodrome in Haryana. The petitioner was ordered to hold an inquiry into the accident. The petitioner was required to submit his preliminary report within one week and. the final report within a period of four weeks. The petitioner reached Karnal on 17th January and held an inquiry into the accident. The petitioner recorded statements of a number of persons including that of Captain Roddey. who was the Chief Flying Instructor at Flying Club Karnal. A traine...
Corporation for American Relief Everywhere and ors. Vs. P.N. Krishnamu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT455
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) A revision petition was filed in this Court by Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere and others against an order of learned trial court dated 4th March, 1981 whereby a witness was directed to produce certain documents/letters. This order was passed by the learned trial court inspire of the objection of the defendants to their production on the ground of relevancy. (2) It appears that Sh P.N. Krishnamurthy, respondent herein, had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from infringement of his certain registered copy rights. He had also filed a suit in 1972 against the defendants for accounts in relation to the aforesaid alleged copy rights. Both the suits, I am told, were consolidated and the plaintiff, Sh. P.N. Krishnamurthy, completed his evidence as far back September, 1973. Thereafter the defendants started their evidence. The defendants last witness Mr. Desmond Ignatius complete his examination-in-chief on 18th Apr...
Union of India Vs. Ram Kishan Metal Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 26(1984)DLT338; 1984(7)DRJ271
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated 14-2-1983. The respondent M/s. Ram Kishan Metal Works, entered into a contract with the appellant, Union of India, for the supply of wire conductors. Ram Kishan Metal Works was the seller. The Union of India was the purchaser. The seller did not supply the contracted goods. The purchaser cancelled the contract. The purchaser made purchases at the risk of the seller. For breach of contract the purchaser claimed Rs. 4,10,401.00 on account of risk purchase and general damages for the non-supply of goods. The seller contested the claim. He denied the claim of the purchaser. He invoked the arbitration clause. The matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. N.S. Mehta. Mr. Mehta resigned. In. his place Dr. Bakshish. Singh was appointed as the sole arbitrator. (2) Before Dr. Bakshish Singh the seller made an application for amendment of the claim. He claimed three specific amounts from the purchase...
Kali Charan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: 1984(2)Crimes392; 1984RLR535
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This appeal has been moved by Kali Charan, Bachhu, Jagan Nath and Suraj Bali against their conviction under section 399/402 Indian Penal Code . Each one of them was further convicted u/s 27 of the Arms Act. For the first offence they were awarded four years, R.I, and a fine of Rs. 500.00. No punishment by way of imprisonment in case the fine was not paid, was specified. Each of them was also sentenced to two years R.I. for the offence under the Arms Act. (2) Briefly stated the prosecution case was that a police party headed by Raj Pal Mehta, Inspector was on patrol duty on the evening of 19.9.79 in the area of Beriwala Bagh. Most of them were in a jeep, while one head constable Darshan Lal and Chuni Lal, A.S.I. were on a two-wheeler scooter. There they received an information from two other S.I's namely, Ved Prakash and Sarvjeet Singh to the effect that some persons had assembled at a mazar near Upadhyaya hospital, Hari Nagar, and they were planning to commit dacoity...
Jay Electric Wire Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)(18)ELT582TriDel
1. The revision application dated 1st September, 1981, under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, against Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras, has been transferred to the Tribunal by the Government of India for disposal as an Appeal in terms of Section 35P(2) of the said Act.2. The appellants import tungsten wire and molybdenum wire of a higher micron size and draw them to finer sizes, which are supplied as such, as also transferred to their own coiling plant, for being converted into filaments. While drawing the wire, it breaks into pieces which are collected periodically and disposed of as scrap. The appellants say that by a mistake of law they filed a classification list dated 6th September, 1979, classifying these broken pieces as a commodity falling under T.I. 68, CET. On 12th November, 1979, a refund claim was filed as the duty paid from 22-12-1977 to 18-7-1979 was not warranted under law.The Assistant Collecto...
Ramesh Kumar, Proprietor of Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC489Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, in the capacity of Gold Control Officer. According to a number of decisions taken by this Tribunal, especially in Appeal No. GC(DEL)26/82-NRB (Order No.779/83-NRB dated 24-11-83) in the matter of S.S. Agarwal, Kanpur, vs.Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, 1985 (22) ELT 482 (Tribunal) it has been consistently held that appeals against the orders of Additional Collector of Central Excise, passed under the Gold (Control) Act, are to be dealt with by the Collector (Appeals) and not the Tribunal.2. Shri J.F. Anand, the learned representative for the respondent, brings to our attention an amendment dated 6-6-84 (S.O. No.417-E).According to this amendment, in the Table annexed to Notification No.S.O. 985(E) dated 27-12-1980, serial number 3 and the entries relating thereto shall be omitted. The effect of this amendment, prima facie, seems to be to remove the limitations on the powers t...
income-tax Officer Vs. Punjab Mercantile and Traders
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD720(Delhi)
1. The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that privilege leave was neither salary nor perquisite.2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business as commission agent of vegetable oil. It paid its commercial manager, Shri S.K. Kejriwal, salary at the rate of Rs. 4,075 per month amounting to Rs. 44,825 for the period 1-7-1977 to 30-11-1977 and also paid Rs. 25,855 in lieu of privilege leave. The ITO held that salary as well as the payment in lieu of privilege leave totalling Rs. 70,680 was in excess of limit of Rs. 5,000 per month under Section 40A(5)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He, accordingly, disallowed Rs. 10,680 (after allowing salary for twelve months though Kejriwal was employed for eleven months).3. The Commissioner (Appeals), following CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd. [1980] 125 ITR 150 (Mad.), held that payment in lieu of privilege leave of Rs. 25,855 was neither salary nor perquisite and, therefore, ...
Ajudhia Distillery and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ244
Sachar, J. (1) This petition challenges the grant of license in form L-IA issued by the Delhi Administration for the year 1984-85 to respondent No. 4. We may note that though the petition had challenged the grant of license L-IA. to one other party also namely respondent No. 8 the grievance with regard to that failed at the admission stage. We are thereforee concerned only with regard to the validity of the grant made in favor of respondent No. 4.(2) The Punjab Excise Act of 1914 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi deals with the possession, sale amongst others in regard to the intoxicants including liquor. Section 26 provides that no liquor shall be bottled for sale and no intoxicant shall be sold, except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a license granted in that behalf. Section 35 further provides that subject to the rules made by the Excise Commissioner under the powers conferred by this Act the Collector may grant licenses for the sale of any i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »