Delhi Court January 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 9 of about 93 results (0.026 seconds)Logic Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC799Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric typewriters and are registered as a small scale unit with the Directorate of Industries. Delhi. In connection with their business activity the appellants were regularly importing parts of electric typewriters from M/s. Business System Incorporated. Holland (hereinafter to be referred to as Holland Party) Vide letter dated 29 6.1981, the Holland party wrote to the appellants that they had acquired the Remington Rand Factory which was manufacturing highly sophisticated office equipment including electric typewriters. They further stated that they had developed a set of 50 video tapes for training technicians and line workers in assembling the electric typewriters. The letter further stated that as a measure of goodwill and promotion of mutual business interest...
Tag this Judgment!Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC686Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the appellants are that the appellants have chemical manufacturing units for the manufacture of Acetone, Acetic Acid, Acetic Anyhydride, Ethyl Acetate and Bleached Cotton Linters which fall under Tariff item No. 68-CET and are used in the manufacture of Acetate filament yarn. Acetate Staple Fibre and Acetate tow. Chemicals, namely. Acetic Acid, Acetic Anhydride, Acetaldehyde are either produced by the appellants or purchased from the market. Goods falling under T.I. 68-CET on which excise duty has been paid, if used in the manufacture of other excisable goods falling under any tarriff item on which duty is payable are eligible for proforma credit of duty as per Notification No. 201/79 dated 4.6.1979.2. On 20.11.1979, the appellants wrote to the concerned Superintendent of Excise, inter alia, the following: We have contracted for purchase of Aldehyde. This Aldehyde falling under T.I. 68-CET will be used in the manufacture of Acetic ...
Tag this Judgment!Zenith Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1810Tri(Delhi)
1. This Appeal originally a revision application filed before the Central Government, arise out of rejection of Appellant's application for registration of their contract, relating to the import of one computer described as "D.S. 900/Model 8" for benefit by way of concessional rate of duty of customs under the provisions of Tariff Entry 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act (hereinafter referred to as the (C.T.A.).2. M/s. Zenith Electronics Ltd., Bombay (the appellants herein) claimed benefit of the registration as project import in respect of the computer imported by them, as described above, which request was declined by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by order of 18-6-1981 on the view that goods imported being in the nature of a computer meant only to develop system commands for adoption to the commands of end product. The activity could not be construed as bringing out a new industrial product. In the Assistant Collector's view, this was merely in the nature of bringing out ...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Singh Vs. State and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ550; 1985(1)Crimes749; 1985(8)DRJ193
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 439 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to one Atar Singh and Ram Chander in a murder case by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. A reference may be made to the facts briefly. On 28th August 1984 the petitioner Amar Singh lodged a report at police station Narela to the effect that he is an agriculturist residing at village Jatpur and that he is the elder brother of Karan Singh, Narain Singh and Atar Singh. He further reported that partition of property between brothers took place about two years back and that Narain Singh and Atar Singh were unhappy about the partition for the reason that the petitioner is issueless; that the petitioner's wife is the eldest sister of Karan Singh and thereforee he was residing with his brother Karan Singh. Other brothers. Atar Singh and Narain Singh were not happy at this as they had a feeling that after the death of Amar Singh, Karan Singh would take his property. He further informed the police that on 28th Au...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Yogender Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ685; 1985(1)Crimes740; 1995RLR109
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) F.I.R. No. 176/84 came to be registered at police station Roshan Ara, Delhi on 5 6.1981 at 7 P.M. when an information was received that a dead.body, which was ultimately identified to be that of one Vijay Pal was found lying in a Nullah near Pwd office. University Area wrapped in a holdall. The body was in a decomposed condition. In connection with the abduction of Vijay Pal a case had already been registered u/s 365 1PC vide F.I.R. 478/84 at Police Station Kashmiri Gate. (2) Two of the accused persons Yogender and Dhirender were granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Judge but when bail application for accused Ashok Rathi was moved it was dismissed on 13.9.1984 after observing that the evidence against Ashok Rathi is different than what it was in respect of Yogender and Dhirender accused who were granted bail. The petitioner Ashok Rathi there after moved the present bail application which was heard by D.R. Khanna, J. on 16.10.84, in which a notice was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi344; ILR1985Delhi851
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioners' sugar mill was established in 1933. A substantial expansion of its capacity was allowed by the Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, in 1965. The cane crushing capacity under the said expansion Scheme was increased from 2,000 tonnes to 2250tonnes of sugar cane per day. On 16-2-1973 the Government of India issued a Notification under Section 29-(B) of the said Act and inter-alia, exempted the sugar industry from. application of Section 10, 11, 11-A and Section 13 of the Act as well as the Rules framed under the Act. Broadly speaking, the exemption was applicable for setting up new industry and expansion of the existing industry. The exemption could be granted wherethe investment did not exceed Rs. one crore. The said new liberalised Scheme envisaged that the undertaking should merely register itself with the Government, without requirement of a license and other conditions laid down by the said Sections of the Act. On 6/12/197...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Banarsilal Uppal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT133
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) ADMITTED. Since the respondents have defaulted in making appearance though served, I proceed to decide this revision. (2) The plaintiffs/respondents have brought, a suit in the trial court, seeking restraint of the Municipal Corporation from demolishing certain alleged unauthorised constructed portion of the property in dispute. The main grievance made is said to be that no notice was properly served upon the plaintiffs before recourse to such intended action of demolition was taken. The suit has been pending for over two years, and an interim injunction was obtained by the plaintiffs against the demolition. The Municipal Corporation in the circumstances, felt that instead of going further into the controversy whether the notice had been served properly or not, it would be safe to serve another notice so that all possible objections about service are eliminated. The Municipal Corporation, however, did not succeed as according Mr. Rohtagi, the plaintiffs started playi...
Tag this Judgment!Parduman Kumar Sehgal Vs. Gulshan Malhotra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi23; 27(1985)DLT399; 1985(8)DRJ173
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This second appeal on behalf of Shri Parduman Kumar Sehgal, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, is directed against the order of learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 3rd September, 1983 whereby learned Rent Control Tribunal accepted the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent. Smt. Gulshan Malhotra and dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the landlord. (2) It appears that the landlord has filed a petition for eviction against the respondent on the grounds contained in Clauses (d) and (h) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). (3) The case of the appellant was that neither the respondent-tenant nor any members of her family are residing in the premises in dispute six months before the filing of the eviction application. The second ground of eviction was that the tenant has acquired vacant possession for residential accommodation in House No. H-3,N D.S.E. Parti, New...
Tag this Judgment!Ghaziabad Engineering Company Private Limited Vs. Union of India and A ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]66STC384(Delhi)
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. The petitioner, Messrs. Ghaziabad Engineering Company Private Limited has raised two questions in this writ petition, namely, (1) whether a fuel injection pump is a component of a diesel engine and (2) the applicability of the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, to the value of the goods which were transferred by it to its factory at Ghaziabad. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the first question does not survive in view of the Sales Tax References Nos. 16 to 21 of 1984 made by the Appellate Tribunal, Sales Tax, Delhi, by its judgment dated 28th June, 1983, which are pending in this Court. 3. As far as the second question is concerned, in the impugned order dated 28th March, 1974 (copy annexure H to the petition), the Sales Tax Officer while following the judgment of the Financial Commissioner in the case of Fitwell Engineers, held that 'I accordingly add back...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Hanif Abdul Hamid Shaikh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT252(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner is the brother of one Izharul Huq Abdul Hamid Shaikh alias Izu Shaikh. He has moved us for the issue of a writ a humans corpus in respect of his brother, the aforesaid Izharul Huq Abdul Hamid Shaikh alias Izu Shaikh, who has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Central Government under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a view to prevent him from engaging in keeping smuggled goods. 2. Originally this very detenu was detained by virtue of an order under the said Act passed on 29th June, 1984 as a consequence of seizure of some goods from a godown on 10th February, 1984. The grounds of detention in respect of the order dated 29th June, 1984 were given also on 29th June, 1984. That order has been passed with a view to prevent the detenu from smuggling goods under section 3(1) of the Act. A petition under Article 226 of the Consti...
Tag this Judgment!