Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)Seven Royals Service and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes600; 1985(8)DRJ289
H.C. Goel, J.(1) This petition has been filed by M/s. Seven Royals Service and its partner Shri G.L. Chadha, petitioners against Shri Ramesh Chander and others under Section 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs/ petitioners had filed a suit against Shri Ramesh Chander and Badri Prashad, respondents No. 1 and .2 for the grant of a permanent injunction against them restraining them, their agents/associates from entering into the factory premises of the plaintiffs/petitioners at B-21, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial area, New Delhi, and from committing criminal trespass, annoying, insulting, intimidating and laying a Gherao and encroaching upon the personal freedom of the plaintiff-petitioner No. 2 and also from causing any damage to the property of the plaintiffs/petitioners and from putting any obstruction or impediment in the production of the factory and further for restraining the defendants/ respondents,...
Tag this Judgment!J.S. Kapur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ345
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk, Ty (IDC Q/Pt) in the Western Command of the Ministry of defense, Government of India, New Delhi. On 17th April, 1970 respondent No. 4, Garrison Engineer, Nasirabad served a charge-sheet on the petitioner and proposed an enquiry against him on certain charges. The Enquiry Officer gave a. finding against the petitioner on the said charges which was confirmed by respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, Poona and Rajasthan Zone vide letter dated 16th December, 1970. The petitioner, by the said letter, was found not fit to be retained in the service and it was proposed to impose a penalty of removal from service against him. On 14th May, 1971 the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 2, against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In this representation apart from preliminary objection regarding competence of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner raised several other objections regarding the vali...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corpn., Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC955Tri(Delhi)
1. As these appeals involve common questions of facts and law they were taken up together. Originally one revision application was filed which on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as Appeal No. ED(SB) (T) 444/81-C. The other appeals have been filed for completion of record as the common order-in-appeal was in regard to several orders-in-original.2. The present appeals are against the common judgment and order dated 29.9.1980 passed by the Collector of Excise (Appeals), Bombay.3. Lube India Limited, known as the Lube Refinery also, was a Company jointly owned on a 50 : 50 basis by the Government of India and the Esso Eastern Inc. This Company was set up to manufacture lubricating oil base stocks and transformer oil base stocks. An agreement was entered into between the Government of India and the Esso Eastern Inc in September 1965. According to the terms of the agreement the Esso Standard Refining Company of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as ESRC) was to supply certain hy...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Industries and Marketing Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1958Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of teleprinter tapes/ rolls. They submitted a claim for refund amounting to Rs. 96,447.09 paise being the duty paid by them on teleprinter tapes/rolls during the period from 9-7-1975 to 17-5-1977. The claim was in pursuance of trade notice No. 93/Paper-4/77 dated 28-5-1977. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta II Division, rejected the claim by his order dated 5-6-1978 on the ground that "The Rule of Law on notices contemplates that a notice is effective from the date of issue". The period of the claim being prior to the date of issue of the trade notice, he rejected the claim. In accordance with the Calcutta High Court's decision, t...
Tag this Judgment!Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. and Cen. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT807TriDel
1. The two appeals were heard together as common questions of fact and, law arise for determination in both appeals, the appeals arising out of a common order.2. M/s. Goodyear India Limited manufacture tyres, classifiable under Tariff Item No. 16 of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. On 26-2-1982 a truck bearing No. HYA 9448 was intercepted and it was found loaded with defective/retreadable tyres. On verification it was learnt that they had been removed from the manufacturing premises of M/s. Goodyear India Limited by M/s. Vijaya Traders. They were seized as they had not been removed under any Central Excise Gate Pass and as it was believed that they had been removed without payment of Central Excise duty payable thereon under Tariff Item No. 16.Statements were recorded from the Manager of M/s. Vijaya Traders as well as the Quality Control Manager of M/s. Goodyear India Limited.Therein they had stated that the goods seized were not tyres but scrap and no duty was ...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky Tractors Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT638TriDel
1. The short point for decision in this matter is whether the appellants, who have set up their factory by purchasing machinery and leasing out the premises of another manufacturer, who was a Central Excise licencee and who had already availed and almost exhausted the benefit of exemption limit from payment of Excise Duty upto the value of Rs. 5 lakhs, under Notification No. 71/78-CE dated 1.3.78, would be entitled separately to claim a further exemption upto Rs. 5 lakhs under the same Notification.2. Shri A.V. Phandis, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, stated that the appellants had purchased machinery from M/s. Gajendra Fabricators and also entered into a lease deed for using the land where M/s. Gajendra Fabricators had earlier got their factory.Thereafter, they submitted a fresh ground-plan and got a new Central Excise licence for the premises. They submitted classification lists indicating that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No.71/78 and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasoi Vanaspati and Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT769TriDel
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Rasoi Vanaspati & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter called the Appellants) manufacture vegetable products in admixture with Hydrogenated indigenous cotton seed oil with hydrogenated other oils. The Central Government has granted exemption from excise duty in the use of indigenous cotton seed oil in the manufacture of vegetable products under Notification Nos.121/72 dated 1-4-1972,230/72 dated 15-12-1972 and 23/75 dated 4-3-1975.2. The appellants submitted claim for rebate of duty on use of cotton seed oil in the manufacture of vegetable products and this was admitted by the Departments. Subsequently, it was found that the system of calculating the percentage of cotton seed oil in the total vegetable products cleared during the period and the quantity of the total vegetable products cleared was not correct and as such all the rebate claims submitted by the appellants since 1-4-1972 were re-examined and the amount of rebate so found t...
Tag this Judgment!National Insulated Cables Co. of Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT793TriDel
1. The captioned appeals were originally filed as revision applications before the Central Government, which under the provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, have come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. The goods whose classification for the purpose of assessment to customs duty is in dispute in these proceedings are Chlorosulphonated polyethylene, manufactured by DU PONT and marketed under the brand name "Bypalon" 40 and 40E. The goods were assessed by the customs authorities as synthetic resin.The appellants' claim is that the goods are synthetic rubber and were assessable at a lower rate of duty and that the differential amount of duty is due to be refunded to them.3. That appellants' claim was not accepted by the lower authorities and hence the appeal. (a) For levy of basic customs duty.-Heading No. 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA, 1975 for short) covering inter alia...
Tag this Judgment!Onkar Travels Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ314
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) The respondent has not put in appearance despite service being complete. Under the circumstances, I have heard Mr. Ahuja, counsel for the petitioner. (2) This revision petition is connection with Civil Revision No. 1088 of 1981 as both the petitioners arise out of two orders passed by Shri P.D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi one on 18th March 1981 and the other one on 23rd March 1981. A suit of the petitioner was being tried by the learned sub judge wherein by his impugned order dated 18th March 1981 the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence was closed. An application under Section 151 Cpc was moved before the learned trial sub judge for reviewing this order which also was declined by his order dated 23rd November, 1981. In this way both the petitions are connected and are to be disposed of together. (3) Mr. Ahuja has taken me through the order-sheet on the file of the court below. It would appear that the first witness of the plaintiff-petitioner came to be e...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works Ltd. Vs. Ramjas Foundation
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT336
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) Unfortunately, I have been denied the benefit of assistance by Mr. S.K. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner. Since, neither the petitioner nor his counsel put in appearance, I have heard Mr. J.K. Seth. (2) In this revision petition, the petitioner has made a grievance in respect of a judgment and a decree dated 14th October, 1981 passed by Shri P.L. Singia, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The brief facts are that the respondent had brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and some amenities charges to the tune of Rs. 44,741.52 paise against the petitioner. The petitioner, after putting in his appearance engaged a counsel, but thereafter failed to submit written statement as directed by the court. His counsel even failed to submit his power of attorney. The suit was listed for 17th June, 1981, on which date, it was adjourned to 14th July, 1981. Thereafter, on 14th July, 1981, a notice was issued for 19th August, 1981 for submission of written statement...
Tag this Judgment!