Delhi Court October 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 57 results (0.021 seconds)Paints and Colour Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT288TriDel
1. This matter arises from a Revision Application filed before the Government of India against Order No. 461-B of 1980 dated 21.6.1980 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this Revision Application has been transferred here and is "now being treated as an appeal before us.2. The allegations are that the appellants manufactured and clandestinely removed, without account them in their statutory records, 2,42,516.3 Litres of ready-mixed paints and enamels, 16,108.5 Kgs. of stiff paints, 35,330 Litres of Varnish, 1,75,244 Litres of Bituminous black and 948 Litres of plastic emulsion paint, during the period from 1.8.69 to 22.3.1973, thus contravening Rules 9(1), 173F, 173G(1), 173G(2) read with Rules 52A and 173(G) of Central Excise Rules. It is alleged that this was detected when the factory premises and head office of M/s. Paints and Colour and the residence of the Proprietor of the Company were simultaneously searched by the Central...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cyanides and Pigments Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. This case relates to the levy of excise duty on synthetic red oxide of iron cleared by the respondents from their factory during the period 1-3-1975 to 2-2-1977. At the time of clearance, duty was paid under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. Subsequently it was held that the goods were classifiable under T.I. 14 and were exempt from duty. The respondents filed a refund claim on 19-1-1979 in respect of duty paid on various dates between 4-6-1975 and 2-2-1977. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, on the ground that it had been filed much after the expiry of six months as required under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. Against this order the respondents filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. They cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Bata Shoe Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna-1972 Tax L.R. 1833 to the effect that such a case would not be governed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules....
Tag this Judgment!Reliance International Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)16ITD43(Delhi)
1. The only ground, pressed by the assessee in the present appeal, is, whether the cash compensatory support of R.s. 2,20,375. received by the assessee, during the previous year, corresponding to the assessment year 1979-80, from the Government of India, for exporting the specified engineering goods, is taxable or not.2. Before we note the rival submissions on this subject in detail, let us ascertain as to what the cash compensatory support is and why and how it is given.3.1 As the process of planning proceeded apace in our country, the need for augmenting our foreign exchange sources, to finance the plans, was felt more and more. One of the ways to achieve this objective was to increase the exports from the country. A Special Export Promotion Scheme regarding engineering goods was devised by the Government in 1963, under which supply of raw materials of iron and steel at concessional rates was, inter alia, provided to the manufacturers to enable them to produce the exportable enginee...
Tag this Judgment!Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. Ludwig Wunsche and Co. and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT148
Leila Seth, J. (1) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice S.N. Kumar on 11/04/1980. (2) Suit No. 714 of 1979 was filed on 23/06/1979 by the plaintiffs-appellants. The prayers mentioned in the said suit are as follows : '(I)A decree of declaration be passed to the effect that there exists between the parties No Agreement to refer the disputes to the Arbitration of anyone, i.e. there is no Arbitration agreement between the parties. (II)And that the appointment of the Arbitrators by the Defendants as well as the Grain and Feed Trade Association,London, is illegal, void and without any jurisdiction. (III)And that the agreement contained in the Plaintiffs letter of 25/01/1979 stands cancelled by the plaintiff's letter dated 3/02/1979 and 12/02/1979 on account of defaults on the part of the defendants. (IV)That the defendants and each of them be restrained by way of Permanent Injunction from proceeding with the Arbitration Proceedings in London. (V)Any other...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Jaina Textiles
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)14ITD457(Delhi)
1. The appellant revenue by their instant appeal challenge the first appellate order dated 15-3-1983 of the learned AAC, Meerut," for the assessment year 1980-81, inter alia, on the following ground : The learned AAC has erred in law and on facts in setting aside the consolidated order and directing the ITO to make two assessments for the two periods.2. The assessee by status is a resident registered firm and the accounting period which we are concerned with is the year ending 31-3-1980. The assessment was framed on 14-12-1982 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). During the relevant accounting period a change took place in the constitution of the firm. Smt. Kiran Mala retired from the business with effect from 7-6-1979. Thereafter, the accounts were finalised and a new partnership deed was executed on the same day, i.e., 7-6-1979 and in fact, was filed along with Form Nos. 11 and 11 A, on 13-7-1979. The registration was allowed.3. It was contended before the I...
Tag this Judgment!Jivram Ramchand Fegade Group Vs. T. Udha Ram Fruit Co. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT305; 1986(10)DRJ81
Dalip K. Kapur, J.(1) The learned single Judge trying suit No. 282/84 passed an order in I.A. No. 5238/84 which is an application for leave to defend the suit whereby leave to defend was granted but on the condition that the defendant furnishes a Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 which would tentatively cover the entire suit amount and costs and future interest. Against this judgment the defendant has appealed and at the stage ofd admission of the appeal notice of the same was accepted by the plaintiff-respondents after the admission of the appeal. We also stayed the operation of the order. (2) In view of the fact that the only question in the appeal was the direction regarding furnishing of the Bank-guarantee, thereforee, we decided to hear the appeal extremely expeditiously, as it was pointless to stay further trial of the suit. The real question in this case arose because this is not a suit of the old type under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code . i.e. it is not a suit on a p...
Tag this Judgment!Trilochan Banga and anr. Vs. Rajesh Khanna and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes11; 1986(10)DRJ98
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition is directed against an order dated November 23, 1982 of Shri T.D. Keshav, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing the summoning of the present petitioners in respect of commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 and 120B Indian Penal Code The summoning was made on the complaint of Shri Rajesh Khanna, a partner of M/s. Saral Trading Co. and also of M/s. Serhoo Mal Jagdish Rai, 2433, Ghhippiwara, Delhi. (2) At the relevant time petitioner No. I Ms. Trilochan Banga was branch manager of Union Bank of India, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and Shri S.K. Kataria, petitioner No. 2 was Superintendent Vigilance Union Bank of India, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The firms of Rajesh Khanna, respondent No. 1, were having some accounts current as well as cash credit etc. in Sunder Nagar branch of Union Bank of India. (3) The complaint is quite lengthy one In the complaint certain allegations have been made.as to how petitioner No.1 had grown inimical to the...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Raj Vs. State of Delhi and Maharashtra
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes153; 29(1986)DLT489; 1986(10)DRJ83
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail. The accusation against the petitioner is that he had offence punishable under Sections 307/201/114 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act at a place within the jurisdiction of police station Santa Cruz, Bombay (Maharashtra) The Crime Report is Cr 328/85 and the investigation is being done by Detection of Crime Branch, Bombay, CID-Bombay Unit VI. (2) The occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place on 12th April 1985 near Hotel Sands Juhu, Santa Cruz, Bombay-49- But the report was, however, recorded on 29th August 1985 at 4 p.m. (3) Briefly speaking the case of the prosecution is as follows. On 12th April 1985 at 8 a.m. the petitioner accompanied by a lady came to hire a taxi. He engaged Taxi of one Dewan Singh, on whose report the first information report was recorded. Then the petitioner told Dewan Singh that he should wait for some time because another person was to join them. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Bishan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes2; 1986(10)DRJ94
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) This disposes of two petitions-one of Ganga Bishan and the other of 0m Parkash, which are Criminal Misc. (Main) 1182 of 1985 and Criminal Misc. (Main) 1183 of 1985 respectively. These petitions arise out of the same occurrence and, thereforee, they are being dealt with together. (2) The accusation against both the petitioners is that they had committed offences punishable under sections 366, 363, 376 read with section 34 IPC. (3) The version of the prosecution briefly is as follows. Anita aged about 17 years is daughter of one Roshan Lal and she was residing with her father at 5/99, Trilokpuri, Delhi. On 7th September 1985 Maya Ram who, according to the prosecution, is one of the main culprits made Roshan Lal totally drunk and took away Anita along with him. On the way he handed over the girl to Ganga Bishan with the direction that she should be taken away to jhuggis. Accordingly, Ganga Bishan took her away in a three-wheeler scooter. It may be mentioned that Ganga B...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Singh and ors. Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT349
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) Suit No. 115 of 1964 was instituted by Nand Lal and and another against Sultan Singh and others in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi, for permanent injunction, seeking restraint of the defendants for constructing any obstruction in the village thorough fare 'EFGH' shown in red colour in the sketch plan attached with the plaint, and requiring the defendants to remove the construction, if already put in there. The plaintiffs had claimed that they were in proprietory possession of the southern side plot/gher of this thoroughfare shown as 'ABCD' and in the said plan, forming part of khasra No. 1503. The village thoroughfare which constituted khasra No. 1500, was said to be the only passage connecting the plaintiffs said plot/gher with the village abadi. The defendants were shown to have their plots and 'gitwars' on the northern side of the thoroughfare bearing khasra Nos. 1498 and 1499. The threatened construction by the defendants was thus it was stated likely to not only o...
Tag this Judgment!