Delhi Court November 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 51 results (0.021 seconds)Jugal Kishore Vats Vs. Sarita Sharma and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR57(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT182; 1986(10)DRJ125
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th June, 1984 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi staying the plaintiff's suit for possession against the defendants-respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. (2) Briefly these- are the facts. Jugal Kishore Vats, appellant filed a suit for possession against the defendants. He has alleged that he is a member of the Sarai Julaina Co-op House Building Society Ltd., that the society had allotted him Plot No. 49 in Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi by a registered deed dated 17th October, 1973 between the President of India, the said society and the plaintiff and thus the lease-hold rights were transferred to him, that be got the building plans sanctioned, that on 20th November, 1978 he entered into an agreement with defendant No. 1 for the construction of a residential house on the said plot, that he executed a power of attorney in favor of defendant No. 2 and a Will in favor of defendant No. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Avon Footwear Indus ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi286; 29(1986)DLT442
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 15th January 1979 of an Additional District Judge disallowing certain interrogatories to be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. 444 (2) The facts giving rise to this revision petition succinctly are that wayback in December 1977 the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 47,51706 P on account of the price of goods of the total value of Rs 34,480.50 P which were dispatched by the plaintiff- respondent to Ahmedabad against 14 goods receipts issued by the defendant- petitioner, who carries on the business of a public carrir, during the period 5th May 1975 to 19th May 1975 as per annexure 'A' to the plaint. It was alleged that the said goods were consigned to Xx 'self and were to be delivered by the defendant-petitioner only on production of the goods receipts issued by them. the said goods receipts having been endorsed in blank by the plaintiff- respondent in favor of their banker ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunder Singh and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT233
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. By this petition the two petitioners are seeking quashing of charges framed against them on 29th March, 1985 by Shri Babu Lal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The said charges are as follows:'I, Shri Babu Lal M.M. Delhi do hereby charge you Sunder Singh S/o Shri Kartar Singh (2) Gurvinderpal Singh S/o Kesar Singh as follows: The both of you along with Kesar Singh (now deceased) in furtherance of your common intention committed criminal house trespass at H. No. 12/46C, Tilak Nagar which was in possession of Charanpal Singh with the intention to cause injuries to him on 3.8.1982 at about 3.15 P.M. and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 452/34 IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly, on the above said date, time and place both of you along with Kesar Singh (now deceased) in furtherance of your common intention voluntary caused grevious injuries to Charanpal Singh and thereby committed an offence under Section 325/34 IPC and within my cognizance. A...
Tag this Judgment!Anisa Begum Vs. Masoom Ali and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ503; 30(1986)DLT107; 1986(10)DRJ224
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi. He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work. He died on 7th March 1983 under mysterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmed aged about 19 years were found floating in river Yamuna on 20th December 1983. The petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. shock absorbers, tools and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased to his own house at 1074. First Floo...
Tag this Judgment!Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC603Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeals involve the same issue and are, therefore, dealt with and disposed of by this common order.2. The issue involved is whether "Arbocel FDY 600 Cellulose Powder" imported by the appellants was liable to be charged to additional duty of customs at the rate of 40%+5% of 40% ad valorem under Item No. 15-A" of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as assessed by the Customs Authorities or at 8% ad valorem under Item 68 of the said Schedule (hereafter referred to as C.E.T.), as contended by the appellants.3. The customs authorities had assessed the goods to basic customs duty under heading No. 39.01/06 of the Imports Customs Tariff Schedule. The appellants' contention was that the correct heading was under Chapter 47 of the said Schedule. It, however, appears that no arguments were addressed before the lower authorities in respect of this plea. The Collector (Appeals) in his impugned orders has, therefore, stated that he did not wish to go into this aspect but at the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT67TriDel
1. The appellants had filed a consolidated appeal in time as per the practice prevalent till 1982. As there were three separate causes of action, they were asked to file two more appeals which they did. The first-mentioned two applications seek condonation of the delay involved in filing the two supplementary appeals. In the circumstances of the case, the learned representative of the department had no objection to the delay being condoned. We condoned the delay.2. The three appeals were then taken up for consideration. The common prayer of the appellants in these appeals is that the yarn (falling under Item 18E of the Central Excise Tariff), manufactured in their factory and captively used by them in the same factory for weaving of fabrics, should be assessed at unsized weight. They stated that on this identical point there had been a number of orders passed by this Bench in favour of the assessees, a recent one in the series being that at 1986 (25) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal) - Somasundam...
Tag this Judgment!CamlIn Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Pencil Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi444; 1986(1)ARBLR86(Delhi)
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) What arises-for consideration in this case is the nature and extent of rights of the plaintiff in printed pencil boxes/cartons in which the pencils are being sold by the plaintiff. (2) In this suit as well as in this application it is contended that the plaintiff is the registered owner of trademark bearing registration No. 324515-B dated 13th April, 1977. It is asserted that the said trade mark is valid, subsisting full legal force. Thattrade'rnark is in reject of fountain pens, pencils, ball pens and refills thereforee, 'the registered trade mark in terms of the certificate, of registration in two words Camlin FLORA. (3) It is also asserted in the application, as also in the suit that the plaintiff is the owner of copyright in the floral design that appear on its printed cartons/boxes and that the design. thereon, in 'original artistic work'. It is also asserted that the respondents are passing off their goods as goods, of the plaintiff. (4) It is asserted tha...
Tag this Judgment!Tirath Ram Salwan Vs. S. Inder Pal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1986)ACC112; 29(1986)DLT96; 1986(10)DRJ127
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is an appeal filed by Mr. Tirath Ram Salwan, respondent No. 2 in the petition for compensation. The Tribunal has warded a sum of Rs. 8.000.00 as compensation to Shri Kunwar Arvind Narain Singh who received injuries at the hands of the appellant while driving scooter No. Dlr 6720. No cross appeal or cross objections are filed by the claimant. The plea of the appellant is that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and that he was not responsible for making any payment.(2) The accident took place on 22-7-1967 near Bus Stand of Motinagar, New Delhi. Claimant Kunwar Arvind Narain was going on the footpath when it is alleged that auto rickshaw No Dlr 6720 driven by the appellant came from behind and knocked down the claimant, causing fracture to his right knee. The claimant was taken to the Willingdon Hospital. Dr. A.K. Srivastava Public Witness ./4 who examined Kunwar Arvind Narain has stated in his evidence that the X'ray revealed that there was a fracture of p...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Mehar Vs. Moji and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ175
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This petition under Article 229 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 25th March, 1985 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, declining reopening of an appeal which had been decided earlier by order dated 22nd November, 1983 passed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, who passed the impugned order. (2) To appreciate the controversy, I may state the facts briefly. (3) There were four sons of one Kanhaiya namely-(l) Jug Lal,(2) Moji, (3) Pirbhu and (4) Lakhi. Lakhi had been murdered and one Daya Ram was tried for his murder. He was, however, acquitted and after acquittal of Daya Ram the other three sons were prosecuted for the murder of Daya Ram. All the three namely Jug Lal, Moji and Pirbhu were convicted on 26th October, 1951 and they were serving life sentences when the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 came into a force. Be lore their convictions they were tilling the disputed land measuring about 45 Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Harnam Singh Vs. Chuni Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT337
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) -BY this second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Harnam Singh challenges the legality of the order passed on 3/10/1984, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal,Delhi, whereby the order under section 15(1) of the Act passed on 10/07/1984, by the Rent Controller was affirmed.(2) The first plea raised in the second appeal is that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has not been extended to the area where the shop in question is situated. According to the appellant the area is known as PalamColony. Mr. J.N. Arora, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, however,submits that the locality is known as Palam Enclave. The Controller had directed the appellant herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent within one month of the order. Before the Controller as well as the Tribunal the question whether the Act had been extended to the area or that the area in question has yet not been declared as urban area had not been raised. That question has been urg...
Tag this Judgment!