Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 93 results (0.022 seconds)Raj Kumar Vs. Ministry of Finance
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR425
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This writ petition is directed against revisional order dated 22.4.80 passed by the Central Govt. in review case No. 407/80 whereby it set aside order dated 30.4.76 (the date wrongly mentioned as 13.8.76) passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. (2) The undisputed facts are that toe petitioners are, inter alia, manufacturing circles of various sizes and specifications as a small-scale industry under the name and style of M/s. Union Corp., Bharatpur. Some of the circles manufactured by them are used in the pistons meant for motor-vehicles while others are used in various other types of machinery. In the relevant year i.e. 1975-76 the petitioner submitted a classification list showing various types of circles manufactured by them. The said list was approved provisionally by the concerned Asstt. Collector, Central Excise. Eventually, however, the classification was rejected vide order dated 15.5 76 on the ground that all kinds of circles which were ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT226
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and order dated 4th June, 1984 made by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi by which the learned Judge reversed the order dated 6th January, 1984 of the trial court, and finally rejected the application of the plaintiff in the suit for grant of temporary injunction. However, on admission of the revision, temporary injunction was granted by this court on 25-7-84 restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner-plaintiff with respect to one half share of land in suit. (2) The brief facts are that the land measuring 22 bighas 17 biswas, Khasra Nos. 952, 953, 954 and 1052 min in village Kilokari, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi was owned by a Muslim who migrated to Pakistan and it became and evacuee property. Samman, father of the plaintiff and Hetu, father of the three defendants, were joint non-occupancy tenants in the land since before ...
Tag this Judgment!Atma Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1695Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cold Rolled Strips. On 21st January, 1981, the stocks and accounts of the appellants were subjected to checks by the preventive staff of the Central Excise, Chandigarh. As a result of these checks, the Central Preventive Officers came to the following tentative findings:- (i) There was a shortage of 45.978 Metric Tonnes of Cold Rolled Strips.The recorded book balance was 60.981 Tonnes while the quantity actually found in stock was 15.003 Metric Tonnes. (ii) 11.333 Metric Tonnes of Cold Rolled Strips, being the production of 19th and 20th January, 1981, were not accounted for in statutory records. (iii) The appellants had un-accounted for stocks of 84.089 Metric Tonnes of Hot Rolled Strips when the raw material Register in Form 4, which was written upto 18th January, 1981, showed a closing balance of 15.960 Metric Tonnes of duty paid Cold Rolled Strips. (i) the seized 11.333 Mts. of Cold Rolled Strips shou...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1661Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals raise a question regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 201/ 79-CE, dated 4-6-79. They arise out of two orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, IDO, Mysore, and the two corresponding Orders-in-appeal passed by the Collectors of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. When these two appeals were taken up for hearing, a question arose whether they were properly matters for a Special Bench. It was seen that the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal, in its Order dated 10-1-84 in Appeal No. A. 154/83 of Bajaj Tempo Limited, had also decided a matter in which the above notification was involved. Again, the South Regional Bench, in its Order in the case of Warner Hindustan Ltd., Hyderabad, reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 373, dealt with a matter arising out of the same notification. However, we also found that these two appeals originally came up before the South Regional Bench, and that Bench itself had taken the view that jurisdiction to decide th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ683; 1985(1)Crimes1072; 27(1985)DLT287; 1985(8)DRJ251
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition against order dated 18th May 1984 of an Additional Sessions Judge succinctly are that the petitioner is a partner in the Firm-M/s. Wishan Das Kharaiti Lal, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The said firm holds a license as a wholesaler for dealing in edible-oils under the provisions contained in the Delhi Edible Oils (Licencing & Control) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'). A raid was conducted by the officials of the Food and Supplies Department, Delhi Administration, on the business premises of the petitioner on 14th August 1980. On scrutiny of various registers viz. stock register, bill book, cash book etc. it transpired that the petitioner should have with him in stock 1560 tins of edible oil. However, on physical verification only 1534 such tins were found in stock. Thus, there were a shortage of 26 tins of mustard and taramira oil. A case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short 'the Act') was,...
Tag this Judgment!Triloki Nath Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD74(Delhi)
1. These five appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal, dismissing the assessee's appeals against the imposition of penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. The assessee is the karta of the HUF known as Girwarlal Pyarelal Morena. The penalties have been imposed in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72. The assessee-family has been assessed to wealth-tax from the inception of that Act. Most of the facts are common in all the five years and in fact the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a speaking order only in the assessment year 1967-68 and in other years, he has followed that order. The position of the assessed wealth and the returned wealth for the five years as given in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is as under :-----------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Returned Assessed After appeal year Rs. Rs. Rs.---------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the National Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT444
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) This revision petition raises a point of procedure in the trial of suits. Weston Electronics Limited sent from Delhi 60 boxes of T.V. sets to Calcutta. The consignment was accepted by Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. petitioner herein, for carriage for reward. On way the goods were damaged. The consignor recovered the value of. the goods from National Insurance Company Limited with whom they were insured. On subrogation the National Insurance Company Ltd. brought the suit against Nitco Roadways for the recovery of Rs. 85.00U.00 . The Roadways were sought to be made liable as carriers of goods. The Roadways pleaded that near Varanashi on 13-3-1980 the tyre of the truck burst and as a result there was a serious accident causing injury to the driver and damage to the goods. This accident, it was said, 'was beyond the control and not due to any negligence or carelessness on the part of the driver of the truck.' (2) On this plea of the Roadways, the following two prelimi...
Tag this Judgment!Jamia Millia Islamia Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT31
G.R. Luthra, J.1. The present petition, which is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the `Code'), seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 133 of the Code and an order dated May 11, 1982.2. The petitioner, Jamia Millia Islamia, is an educational institution and is a duly recognized university by he University Grants Commission Act. It was allotted an area of about 200 acres as an educational and research institute within the union territory of Delhi. That land is near Okhla headworks.3. Respondents 2 to 25 are residents of a locality near to the petitioner university. That locality is called `Gafoor Nagar Colony'. They filed a petition under Section 133 of the Code before a Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi to the effect that there was a public pathway existing between Gafoor Nagar Colony and main Okhla Road, That that public pathway existing between Gafoor Nagar Colony and main Okhla Road...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Berry Vs. A.P.S. Bindra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi248
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') by the tenant is directed against the judgment and order dated 23/5/1984 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 16/2/1984 of the Additional Rent Controller. The question for decision is : Whether the order for eviction of the appellant dated 7/1/1980 is a nullity and not executable 'Statement of tenant: Statement of Arvind Berry on S.A. I admit the necessity of the petitioner as he has no other suitable residential accommodation. The petitione;' is the owner of the premises. Eviction order may be passed in favor of the petitioner. However, I may be given time to vacate the premises till 31/10/1984. In the meantime I shall pay rent/damages for use and occupation at Rs. 1,500.00 p.m. w.e.f. 3/1/1980 I undertake to hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner on or before 31/10/1984. In case I do not pay rent/damages for use and occupation for 2 months co...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subbiah Gounder Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT618TriDel
1. The appellant, a tobacco warehouse licensee, was held by the lower authorities to have contravened Sub-rules (c) and (d) of rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for having illicitly removed non-duty-paid tobacco from his bonded warehouse and on that ground a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on him. Duty on the resultant shortage of 74,716 kgs. of tobacco was demanded from him under rule 160. Further, the quantity of 16,310 kgs. of tobacco which had been seized for contravention of rule 151 was confiscated but an option was given to the appellant to have it redeemed on payment of the fine of Rs. 5,000/-.2. During the hearing of the appeal before us today, the appellant stated that he had already paid the redemption fine of Rs. 5.000/- and he did not want refund of this money. He was also willing to pay the penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The only point on which he pressed for his appeal was that the demand for duty on the resultant shortage of 74,716 kgs. of tobacco should be withdr...
Tag this Judgment!