Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 57 results (0.021 seconds)Heeral Enterprises and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC26
1. These are 15 appeals in all, arising out of the levy of additional duty of Customs (commonly referred to as "countervailing duty" or "C.V.D.") on consignments of Micro-crystalline Wax imported by M/s.Heeral Enterprises, Bombay, (referred to for convenience as "M/s.Heeral"). The additional duty was levied at the time of clearance of the consignments for home consumption at the rate appropriate to Tariff Item 11A(2) in the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. (The sub-items in this schedule underwent renumbering in 1982, consequent on the deletion of the original sub-item (2), relating to L.P.G., and the renumbering of sub-item (3) "waxes" as sub-item (2). Though these appeals relate to cases occurring before as well as after the amendment and renumbering, it has been assumed for convenience that the applicable entry throughout was sub-item (2), with the description "waxes"). It was the contention of M/s. Heeral that the relevant Central Excise Item was T.I. 68, and on this basis they fil...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT620TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as Revision Application before the Central Government against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-26/79 LC, dated 27-11-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the Revision Application was transferred to it in terms of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962, to be disposed of as it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellant imported acrylic fibre at the port of Bombay and warehoused the goods.On 26-6-1978, the appellant paid duty on a quantity of goods intended to be removed from the warehouse at the rates prevalent at the material time. On 4-10-1978, the President of India promulgated the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Ordinance. In terms of it, an additional duty of excise was imposed on the specified articles.Acrylic fibre was an item which attracted such additional duty. The warehoused goods were not rem...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavi Ram Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1655; 1986(1)Crimes528; 1986(10)DRJ241
Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, dt. 14th March 1984 convicting the appellant of the offence under S. 302 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to the payment of a sum of Rs. 500/- as fine. In default of payment of fine the appellant was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts are few and they are as follows. Complainant in the case is one Kharak Bahadur, resident of Nepal, who on the date of the incident which is, 4th January 1982 was working in Delhi and was residing at E-C, Railway Quarters, Patel Nagar, where Man Singh had come to see him and his nephews Bomb (illegible) Bahadur and Dil Bahadur who were staying with him. The prosecution case is that they left for Kirti Nagar to see one Nar Bahadur working at 9/56 (illegible) Woollen Mills, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area. It is said that when they reached near the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Verma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi7; 1989(42)ELT518(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. The petitioner in the year 1962 obtained actual users license for import of certain components for manufacture of clocks and time-pieces. The petitioner had entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s. Favre Leuba & Co. Ltd., Bombay for obtaining financial and technical assistance for the manufacture of these clocks and time-pieces. On the arrival of the goods at Bombay on 13th November, 1962 the petitioner for some reason could not get the goods released. The petitioner wrote to the Directorate of Industries, Himachal Pradesh for permission to process the raw material and parts for manufacture of clocks and time-pieces outside the factory premises and also for exemption of demurrage charges. In view of the collaboration agreement of the petitioner with M/s. Favre Leuba & Co. Ltd. the petitioner wanted that the goods be released in Bombay to M/s. Favre Leuba & Co. Ltd., Bombay after which the actual manufacture of clocks and time-pieces could be done at Mandi...
Tag this Judgment!National Council of Applied Economic Research Parisila Bhawan Indrapra ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR268]; (1986)IILLJ90Del
1. The National Council of Applied Economic Research (hereinafter referred to as N.C.A.E.R.) was registered as a Society in the year 1956 with the principal object to undertake, aid, promote and co-ordinate economic research. The N.C.A.E.R. is entrusted with the projects requiring surveys to be carried in diverse parts of the country which often require collection of material by conducting interviews in far flung places. A dispute arose between some Interviewers and the Management of N.C.A.E.R. in the year 1975. A statement of claim was filed by the N.C.A.E.R. Employees Union before the Conciliation Officer, Delhi Administration challenging the termination of the services of these four Interviewers. A written statement was filed by the Management of N.C.A.E.R. wherein it was contended that the N.C.A.E.R. was not a commercial or business establishment and was non-profit making research body and thereforee not an 'industry' within the meaning of S. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes535; 30(1986)DLT118; 1986(10)DRJ109; 1986RLR545
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This petition under Section 482' Code of Criminal Proceedure (hereinafter referred to as .the Code), raises some important questions of law. However, the facts giving rise to it lie in a narrow compass. (2) On 4th July 1983, the petitioner, his wife Smt. Malti Devi, the tenant of the petitioner Ramesh Chand and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Were arrested by Si Bachan Singh of Police Station Sultan Pari under Section 93 read with Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act (for short 'the Act'). It was alleged that the petitioner and his wife on the one hand and Ramesh Chand and his wife on the other were indulging in abusive language and were fighting with each other in a public street and they would not desist C from doing so despite intervention by the people residing in the Mohalla and even the police. They were produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on that very day and were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 500.00 each. A report termed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court on Own Motion Vs. Yogesh Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986RLR348
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) I had in exercise of my powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. directed that the various files of cases pending u/s IPC. 309 (attempt to commit suicide) in the trial Courts in Delhi, be summoned and placed before me for disposal. The files have been called by the Registry and placed before me. From the statement, I find that there are 120 cases pending in various trial Courts in Delhi, some pending since 1972. (2) Mr. Saini, Advocate, is present in Court. I have asked him to assist me in these matters. He appears amices curiae. Notice had been issued to the State. Sodhi Teja Singh, Standing Counsel for the State, also appears for Delhi Administration. (3) A.D.B. of this Court in State v. Sanjay Kumar, 1985 Cri. L.J. 931 in dealing with a case u/s 309, Indian Penal Code . observed that the 'continuance of Section 309 Indian Penal Code . is an anachronism unworthy of a humane society like ours.' It also observed that there was no justification for a provision like Section 309 In...
Tag this Judgment!Darya Datta Chawla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT271
Leila Seth, J.1. This writ petition has been filed seeking issue of Writ of Certiorari declaring that the land in suit, Khasra Nos. 1438/5-16, 1439/(SIC), and 1431/3-16 is not covered by Section 6 notification issued by the respondents on 7th June, 1985. It is stated that a notification under Section 4 was issued on 25th November, 1970 by which the Lt. Government of Delhi required certain lands to be taken at Government expense. The said notification exempted three types of lands from the purview of the notification. In terms of the Clause (c) of the said notification, the land in respect of which building plan were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi before 5th of November, 1980 was to be exempted rom the provisions of the said notification. This was followed by a notification of 7th June, 1985 under Section 6 by which a declaration was made. This notification also gave details of land including the land in the present with petition. This has brought the present petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Land and Finance Universal Ltd. and ors. Vs. Arjun Singh and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi381; 1986(10)DRJ200
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 2nd November, 1981. deciding Suit No. 373/67 (on the Original Side of this Court). The Suit in question was instituted by three residents of Model Town, Delhi, to claim a declaration and injunction concerning some land situated in Model Town. It maybe recalled that Model Town was developed as a colony by M/s. Delhi Land and Finance Private Limited. The name of that company was changed later to Dlf United Private Limited and now the present appellant is Dlf Universal Limited, which is described as the successor company. In that colony, plots were sold to various persons for building their private houses. In the lay-out plan of the colony, certain land had been set aside for various purposes, such as streets, parks, schools, markets, and. so on. Two of the sites which were shown as 'ear-marked for public building' and measured 05 were the subject-matter of the Suit from which this appeal has arisen. (2) These two plots we...
Tag this Judgment!Chadha Oil Co. Vs. Radhey Shyam Brahmchari and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT258
G.R. Luthra, J.1. The present revision petition is directed against two orders each dated 26th July 1985 passed under Section 145(1) CrPC. By way of one order, the parties before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi were directed to file their written statements, list of witnesses and documents in respect of their respective claims and the second order was to the effect that any construction made by 'Party No. 2' (Consisting of Manohar Lal Chadha, Subhash Kallu, Kailash, Mangu and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) would be subject to the final decision of the said court made under Section 145 CrPC. 2. Originally the petitioner was M/s. Chadha Oil Co. through one of the partners, named Manohar Lal Chadha. An objection was raised by the respondent i.e. Saraswati Sahitya Mandir that M/s. Chadha Oil Co. was not a party before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, that the parties were different persons and that, thereforee, the present petition was not maintaina...
Tag this Judgment!