Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 93 results (0.008 seconds)Raj Trading Corporation Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT420; 1985RLR226
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This case is also a sad story of neglect on the part of the counsel in the case in helping the needy litigants and in assisting the courts in the administration or justice. Neither the counsel for the petitioners not the respondents were present in the court. The matters listed before me are short revisions. First Appeals etc. The counsel, thereforee, should be in readiness one after another as and when the matters are called out. It has now become almost a routine experience, both before the Division Benches and before the Single Bench that the counsel do not present themselves in regular hearing matters even after repeated indulgence stown by the courts. Most of the Benches of this Court are regularly required to dismiss the matters in default for the appearance of the counsel. But the experience is that the lesson does not go home for improving punctuality of attendance in the court. It only adds to the work of the court, which is already heavily over-worked. Restora...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Dhall Vs. B.P. Dutta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes848; 27(1985)DLT24; 1985(8)DRJ286
H.C. Goel, J.(1) One K.L. Dutta had filed a suit, being suit No. 409/80, against Behari Lal Chhabra for possession of the plot of land bearing No. Vb 64B, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. A decree for possession of that plot of land was passed in his favor by Mr. V.K. Malhotra, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on March 28, 1981. The decree holder took out execution of that decree. That was resisted by the judgment debtor and the possession of that plot could not be delivered to the said decree holder. Thereafter Smt. Mohan Devi through her attorney Shri K.L. Dhall filed a suit, being Suit No. 30/82 in the court of Mr. P.D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on January 15, 1982 for a declaration that the aforesaid decree was not executable against her together with a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree against her plot No. A-47, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. In this suit she imp leaded Shri Krishan Lal Dutta and Shri Brahm Prakash Dutta who is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT557TriDel
1. This matter had previously come up on 7-12-1984. On that occasion the Bench had first taken up the question of limitation, since it had been submitted in the appeal that the show cause notice in this case was barred by limitation. The appellants' submission was that the amount of rebate was credited in their P.L.A. on 6-11-1972 whereas the show-cause notice was issued only on 22-2-1977. Since this was material point we had adjourned the matter to enable the appellants to submit the evidence in support of their contention.2. When the matter came up today, Shri Inbarajan, who is present for the appellants, submitted that they had since submitted the necessary -evidence. We have before us copies of the Personal Ledger Account of the appellants for the period starting from 21-11-1972, checked and attested by the Inspector of Central Excise. This shows that credit of the amount of Rs. 2,03,218 was taken on 22-11-1972 (Shri Inbarajan explains that the date of 6-11-1972 previously mention...
Tag this Judgment!Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT138TriDel
1. As the issue involved in the two appeals, originally preferred as revision applications before the Central Government, is identical and flow from a common order-in-appeal dated 24-3-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, the same were taken up for hearing and disposal together. The case of the appellants as set out at length by their advocate Shri Bedi is as follows : 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters and at the relevant time had two such units, one at Connaught Lane and the other at Najafgarh Road. The aerated waters were brought under the Central Excise Tariff w.e.f. 1-3-1970 (Item 1-D GET). The rate of duty was on ad valorem basis. The appellants wrote a letter dated 1-3-70 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, MOR HI stating as under : "Kindly approve the following wholesale prices of our aerated water as shown below :-Coca-Cola Rs. 7/-per crate.Soda Rs. 21- per crate.Fanta Rs. 7/- per crate." The Superin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ishwari Bai Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD131(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the accountable person relates to the estate duty assessment of Smt. Ishwari Devi, who died on 5-3-1979. The deceased owned certain lands and the question before us is regarding their valuation having regard to the circumstances of the case.2. The first point is regarding the value of Bahadurgarh plot. This plot had been acquired by the Haryana Government on 18-2-1977, which was much before the date of death. The case of the assessee was that only the compensation regarding this land could be taken into consideration while valuing this property. The Appellate Controller, however, ignored the fact of acquisition as, according to him, this evidence had come before him for the first time and he upheld the valuation of the above land at Rs. 30,425 as fixed by the Assistant Controller. This valuation has been made on the basis of the prevailing price.3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the fact of acquisition was claimed by the accountable per...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Saroop Chopra and Vs. Som Nath Bhatia and anr. and
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT380; 1985RLR212
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) These are two appeals from the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. There is common question of law, namely, whether there is misuse of property and whether the tenant is liable to eviction under clause (k) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). This judgment will govern both the appeals, I will take up first S.A.O. No. 241 of 1983. (2) First the statutory provisions. Clause (k) of section 14(1) of the At says that the Controller will make an order for recovery of possession on the ground namely : '(K) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the pre mises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated :'Sub-section (II) of section 14 says : 'NO order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specifie...
Tag this Judgment!Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT266TriDel
1. This case relates to a claim for refund of duty paid by the appellants on certain quantities of sugar produced and cleared by them, in terms of Notification No 146/74-C.E., dated 12-10-1974. The matter was partly heard on 12-121984. The hearing was resumed and completed on 25-1-1985, when certain clarifications furnished by Shri H.L. Verma, the learned representative of the Department, were also taken into consideration.2. Some relevant dates and facts relating to the case, as agreed on by both sides, are given below : 19-6-1975 The appellants filed their "Excise rebate claim on excess production of sugar during the period December 74 to September 75". The amount of rebate as calculated and claimed by them came to Rs. 4,04,250.57P. 4-9-1975 On the above application the Assistant Collector passed his order authorising them to take credit of Rs. 3,98,953.43P as basic duty. 28-3-1976/3-4-1976 The appellants addressed a further letter dated 28-3-1976 to the Appellate Collector submitti...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC449Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals have their genesis in the notice bearing F. No.380/141/80-Cus. II dated 24th March, 1981 issued to the Respondents by the Central Government under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.The notice called upon the Respondents to show cause why the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.- passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, allowing the appeals filed by them should not be set aside and the relative Assistant Collector's orders restored. The proceedings were transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if they were appeals filed before the Tribunal.2. Since all the matters arise out of the aforesaid consolidated show cause notice, this order disposes of all the matters.3. The facts of the case, as set out in the show cause notice, in brief, are that the Respondents imported consignments of coconut oil on which the Customs authorities charged additional (countervailing) duty of Customs corresponding to the excise duty le...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1675Tri(Delhi)
1. The point for decision in this matter is whether certain Coolers installed by the Life Insurance Corpn. office at Raipur by obtaining the Exhaust Fans and Tully Pumps separately on payment of installation charges to a local company on job basis, would be liable to Central Excise duty.2. Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellants stated that the appellants are a corporation which is a Public Sector Undertaking and their essential function is to undertake life insurance. Carrying on manufacturing business of any kind, is in no way their function. In the instant case, they had purchased exhaust fans and water lifting pumps from a firm in Kanpur and fitted them in a cabinet and installed them in Raipur office. Shri Gupta submitted that this process of installation of the exhaust fans and lifting pumps cannot make the appellants manufacturers of evaporative type of coolers. They have said that it is well-known that their function is life insurance and not manufacture of coolers. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Singh Vs. Sohan Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi293; 28(1985)DLT28
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This is an application for review of my order dated 3rd May 1984. The review is sought by the respondent Maj. Sohan Siagh Aurora (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) on the ground that the said order was made by me without noticing the provisions contained in Section 21(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') and as such it suffers from a legal infirmity. (2) The facts of the case have been given at considerable length in my order under review and I need not recapitulate the same. While setting aside the order of remand dated 25th May 1981 passed by Shri S.R. Goel, Additional District Judge and directing that the suit be re-tried and disposed of by an Additional District Judge, I also quashed the entire proceedings subsequent to the aforesaid remand order as being without jurisdiction. The said proceedings were taken in the court of Subordinate Judge who as observed in my order under review, had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits of the value u...
Tag this Judgment!