Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 8 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)Himalaya Industries Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC2137Tri(Delhi)
1. The short question falling for determination in this Appeal is as to the liability to lavy of excise duty of the products described as " i.e. Un-threaded bolts, cleared by the appellants during the period 1.8.1981 which the appellants claim to be in the nature of steel forgings, at intermediary stage, for the manufacture of their final product, viz. nuts & bolts. The appellants plead that these steel forgings (blank bolts) were manufactured out of duty-paid steel-rods, and at intermediary stage, would not attract duty under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. They also contend time-bar with reference to show cause notice whereby duty demand has been made, on the plea that there was no clandestine removal of the goods and that all information and particulars of clearances was duly reflected in their books of account, and even now the information for computing the duty demand had been collected from the said books of account. For the same reason, they plead, that no case for ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat NaraIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes529; 27(1985)DLT346
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The revision petition is against an order dated 15th April 1983 of a Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 under Section 420 IPC. The said order was made under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). (2) Respondent No. 2 Kanwar Balbir Singh is the Managing Director of M/s Kanwar Papers Private Limited, Kala Amb, Distt. Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh) which was incorporated as a private limited company on 14th January 1981. A complaint was instituted by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 sometime in January 1983 alleging that be was employed as a head clerk in Grindlays Bank and he was to retire there from on superannuation on 15th February 1981. He was, thereforee, on the look out for a job to maintain himself and his family after his retirement. Sometime in December 1980 he happened to meet respondent No. 2 at the residence of Shri H, Malik a retired Additional Di...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(1)ARBLR281(Delhi); ILR1985Delhi131
D.P. Wadhawa, J.(1) This is a petition under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act').(2) The petitioner, a contractor, centered into a contract with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation), respondent No. 1, for construction of certain works at Faridabad for the R & D Centre of the Corporation. Respondent No. 2 is the head of the R&D; Centre, Faridabad. The contract combined an arbitration clause. Before. proceed further it is better to set out the relevant clauses of the contract, between (he. parties touching on the arbitration. These are :-- (I)'1.0.23.0.'Notified Clai.m' shall mean a claim of the Contractor notified in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6.6.1.0. hereof.' (II)'6.6.1.0. Should the contractor consider that he is entitled to any extra payment o,- compensation in respect of the works over and above the amount due in terms of the contrac as specified in. Clause6.3.1.0. hereof or should.the Contractor dispute the validity of any de...
Tag this Judgment!Ranbir Prakash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(1)Crimes752; 27(1985)DLT242; 1985(8)DRJ219
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) This petition arises out of an order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26-4-82 and confirmed by an Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi on. 8-3-83 refusing to drop the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner on a police report under Section 482, 483 and 485 IPC. (2) Stating briefly the facts are that on 5th February, 1981 S.I. Kanta Pershad of Special Cell (South Distt.) while on petrol with his staff came across one Ram Dhari near Sewa Nagar and found him carrying a bundle of printed lables 'Fowara Chhap Bidi'. Ram Dhari disclosed that he was an employee of the petitioner who was running a printing press at Haiderpur. On inspection of the press the S.I. discovered six bags containing 'Fowara Chhap Bidi' lables and dyes of different popular registered brands of Bidis. On further enquiry it was found that the petitioner was also having a godown at 519, Katra Neel Gali Krishna, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On inspection of the said godown, 10 bag...
Tag this Judgment!Gobind Ram and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT353(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange by virtue of an order dated June 28, 1984, passed under the signatures of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The grounds of detention dated June 28, 1984 were served on him. 2. The detention has been challenged on diverse grounds, including the contentions, (a) that various documents referred to, mentioned or relied upon in the grounds of detention have not been supplied to the petitioner despite request, resulting in an effective opportunity to make a representation against the detention being denied to him; (b) illegible copies were supplied along with the grounds of detention of various documents relied upon in the grounds of dete...
Tag this Judgment!Dassmal Ram Labhaya Vs. Mahabir Singh, Financial Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]61STC58(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J.1. The petitioner herein, firm Dassmal Ram Labhaya of Loha Mandi, Motia Khan, Delhi, had sought exemption of the sales tax on the sale of Persian wheel frames manufactured by it for the assessment year 1965-66. The Sales Tax Officer dismissed its plea and held that it was not entitled to the exemption of the sales tax on the sale of the Persian wheel frames amounting to Rs. 3,05,227.00, on the ground that the said goods manufactured and sold were not agricultural implements. The petitioner appealed against the said order which appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax. Thereafter, the first revisional authority as well as the second revisional authority also dismissed the respective revision petitions. A copy of the order dated 15th December, 1970, of the Financial Commissioner is annexure 'D' to the writ petition. By the present petition the challenge is to the orders of the assessing authority on the ground that the Persian wheel frames sold by...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwamber Datt Sharma Vs. S.P. Singh Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ257
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the order dated February 18, 1984 passed by Shri S.P. Singh Chaudhary, Additional District Judge, Delhi (Election Tribunal) dismissing the election petition of the petitioner under Section 15 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (2) The polling for election of 100 Councillors for Municipal Corporation of Delhi took place on February 5, 1983 under the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillors) Rules,1962(hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner was a candidate for election to Municipal Ward No : 68 in the election held on February 5, 1983. In all five candidates earlier filed their nomination papers, out of which three withdraw their candidature and there remained the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as the contesting candidates. The counting to...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Nagpal Vs. Dharam Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT12; 1985(8)DRJ229
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This is an appeal which was filed by Shri C.L. Nagpal, who was a tenant of a part of the premises bearing No. 8, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, against the order of eviction which was passed against him by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Tribunal.(2) The short question of law which arises in this case is whether the Rent Controller has the power to condone the delay in depositing the rent pursuant to an order having been passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').(3) Shri Nagpal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') was occupying the aforesaid premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 60.00 . On 18th July, 1969 the respondents filed an application for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant, had defaulted in payment of rent. It was also pleaded that he had caused substantial damage to the premises by making unauthorised construction. The allegations were denied by th...
Tag this Judgment!Ruchika theatre Group Etc. Vs. Delhi Administration Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi324; 27(1985)DLT453
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This petition challenges the impugned order dated 11-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Licensing by which he refused to issue a license to the petitioner to perform or exhibit the play 'Bhutto'. This order is purported to have been passed in persuance of Regulation 120 of the Regulations known as Licensing and Controlling places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and performances for Public Amusement, 1980 (hereinafter to be called the Regulation of 1980) framed in exercise of powers under Section 28 of Delhi Police Act. (2) The Petitioner Society No. I is registered under the Societies Registration Act styled as Ruchika Theatre Group and is engaged in staging plays for amusement and information of general public. The petitioner society decided to stage a play entitled Bhutto which is a satire on the would leaders and heads of government. Though apparently a sensitive topic yet a live democracy has to live with such freedom of expression. (...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Raj Bala Vs. Shri Krishan Avtar Kaushik
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ283
D.R. Khanna, J. 1. Of the two grounds on which Krishan Avtar Kaushik sought divorce from his wife Raj Bala under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, one relating to cruelty on her part, was negatived by the trial court, and no attempt has been made during the hearing of this appeal to find any infirmity in that finding. That aspect, thereforee, need not be discussed here. It was on the ground of desertion that divorce was allowed. The husband's allegations were that she had left for her parents house on 31-5-1979 after taking away her jewellery from the locker. Subsequently he tried to bring her back on 10-6-1979 by going to her parents' house, but was given callous treatment and told that she had no intention of continuing married life with him, and their relations should be treated as served.2. The case of Raj Bala appellant, on the other hand, has been that she continued to reside with Krishan Avtar up to the third week of July, 1982 when she was turned out on her failure to satis...
Tag this Judgment!