Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 57 results (0.023 seconds)Standard Batteries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC20
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector who has upheld the lower authorities' order regarding levy of duty and penalty on the appellants.2. It is seen from the record that the appellants, who are manufacturers of storage batteries, received lead bars for conversion of the same into powder. The appellants' case is that they received lead bars from M/s Ashok Batteries, Kanpur for converting these into lead powder on job work basis and returned the same to them and that no manufacturing process is involved as making the powder from lead slabs does not amount to manufacture. It is, however, seen that part of the lead gets converted into lead oxide during the powdering process and for this reason the lower authorities had held that there is a distinct change in name, character and usage of the final product emerging out of the powdering process and hence the duty liability. The process of manufacture as ascertained by the lower authorities is that the lead bars (a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Devi and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes113; 29(1986)DLT87
G.R. Luthra, J.1. Two petitions (Crl. Rev. No. 108 of 1985 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985) are being decided together and the judgment is being written in the file of Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985. Both these petitions are directed against the same order dated April 18, 1985 directing the framing of a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against all the petitioners and then on the same day framing formal charge. The petitioners in both the cases were charged with commission of offence of abetment to commit suicide by Smt. Promila on January 15, 1984 at 7.45 p.m.2. Promila was daughter of Ram Pershad Sharma, resident of Trinagar, Delhi. About five years ago, she was married to one Raghbir and after marriage they started living at village Aurangabad, District Sonepat, Haryana.3. Ram Kishan (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985) is step brother of Raghbir (husband of deceased). The other petitioner Smt. Rama Devi in that petition is wife of Ram Kishan. Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Trilok Chand Tuteja Vs. Jamna Dass Chuoh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT189; 1986RLR521
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Addl. Controller, Delhi dated January 21, 1984. (2) Property No. 695-696, Double Storey Quarters situated in New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi was a Government built property. The President of India vide lease deed dated October 20, 1965 leased this property to Sham Lal Taneja for a period of 99 years commencing from December 12, 1957. Taneja's mother lived on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 696 along with her daughter and son-in-law Jamna Dass Chugh since before the execution of the lease deed. On her death Sham Lal Taneja took his brother-in law Chugh as his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 130.00 . On tenant's application standard rent of the ground floor was fixed at Rs. 60.75 per month by the Addl. Controller. Sham Lal Taneja, sold this property to Trilok Chand Tuteja, the petitioner, by means of sale deed October 22, 1977. Jamna Dass Chugh (the respondent tenant) thus became a tenant under Trilok...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnoo and ors. Vs. Gaon Sabha, Soongarpur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT145; 1986(10)DRJ142
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This order will dispose of CM(M) 256/85 & CM(M) Nos. 267 to 273 of 1985.(2) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution it directed against an order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, dated 23rd July, 1985 whereby the learned Financial Commissioner Delhi vacated an order dated 23rd March, 1985 passed by Revenue Assistant directing status quo to be maintained during pendency of a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11(l)(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.(3) An order for eviction was passed against the petitioners under Section 86(a) of the aforesaid Act on 12th December, 1980. The petitioners are alleged by the respondents to have been dispossessed on 8th May, 1984 Petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 12th December, 1980 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on 23rd July, 1984. (4) On 28th August, 1984, petitioners filed an application under Section 11(a)(a) of the aforesaid Act for being...
Tag this Judgment!British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (2003)(90)ECC636
1. A common issue is involved in all these four appeals and they relate to the same appellants. They are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants manufacture both pure wool tops as well as blended wool tops and use them further in the manufacture of woollen yarn and woollen fabrics within their factory. Pure wool tops are first produced out of natural wool which are then mixed with synthetic/cellulosic fibres to make blended wool tops. The substantive issue involved in these appeals is whether the appellants should discharge their duty liability under item 43 of the Central Excise Tariff at the pure wool top stage or at the blended wool top stage. This item reads as under: "43 WOOL TOPS and carded gilled slivers containing, in either case, more than fifty percent by weight of wool calculated on the total fibre content." In these proceedings we are concerned only with those blended wool tops which contained more than 50 percent by weight of wool.3. During th...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Chand Kapoor Vs. New Rialto Cinema (P) Limited
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas276(Delhi)
1. Admit. 2. The learned company judge had dismissed the company petition on the ground that though at the time the company petition was moved, there was an existing debt, but by the time the matter came up before him, the said debt had become time-barred. The learned company judge apparently felt that the crucial date for determining the question of maintainability is not the stage when the application is filed, nor even when a show-cause is issued, but the later stage when an order is being passed by the court. 3. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in an identical matter, considered this point and held that there was nothing in the Companies Act, to the effect, that a petition for winding up which was properly maintainable when filed, ceased to be so maintainable, if at the date of the order, the debt on which the petition was based had become barred by limitations. (See Modern Dekor Painting Contracts P.Ltd. v. Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. : [1985]155ITR258(Bom) . 4. We...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chand Vs. L.D. Malik and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR629]; (1994)IIILLJ51Del
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. 1. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court dated 8th March, 1985 whereby the learned Labour Court inter alias declined the request of the workman for examining Shyam Pal and Ram Brikash as his witnesses during the adjudication proceedings. 2. The petitioner/workman, Sh. Ramesh Chand, was dismissed by the Management of the Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. for alleged misconduct in taking bribe for getting an employment to one Lallan Singh with the Mills. There was domestic enquiry held which inter alias examined Shyam Pal and Ram Brikash on behalf of the Management and they supported the Management's case against the workman and after domestic enquiry the petitioner was dismissed. The Tribunal also gave approval to the action of the Management. However, on the request of the workman, the Administration made reference to the Labour Court to adjudicate whether the termination of t...
Tag this Judgment!