Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 76 results (0.020 seconds)Manju Singh Vs. Ajay Bir Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi420; 1985(8)DRJ354; 1985RLR299
Sultan Singh, J.(1) The petitioner, Suit. Manju Singh was married to the respondent Ajay Bir Singh on 21st January, 1979 at Village and P.O. Chautala, District Sirsa, Haryana. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for a decree of divorce on the ground that after the solemnisation of marriage the wife treated the husband with cruelty. The wife was served with the summons of the divorce petition for 11th September, 1984. It was submitted on her behalf that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy residing at Village Chautala and was not in a position to undertake Journey and be present in court. It was requested that a date for reconciliation before the filing of the written statement after about 1' months be given. The request was refused by the trial court and the following order was passed on 11th Steptamber, 1984:- 'THE respondent requests for a date of to effect reconciliation before the written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Devi and ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT35a; 1985(9)DRJ158; 1985RLR305
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This judgment disposes of two revision petitions, namely, Cr. R. Nos. 216 and 224 of 1983, which were directed by AnandJ. to be heard together. (2) By Criminal Revision No. 216 of 1983 Ganga Devi, her son 0m Parkash and her grand son Bhupinder Kumar have sought quashing of the charge framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6th August, 1983. The charge reads us under :-- 'I,Shri B.B. Gupta, A.S.J : New Delhi charge you Om Parkash son of Hari Ram, (2) Bhupinder Kumar son of Om Parkash and Smt. Ganga Devi w/o Hari Ram as under : That on 8.6. 1982 at house No. B-5/75, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi, in the area of P.S. Vinay Nagar, Smt. Usha Rani committed suicide. And you all in furtherance of your common intention abetted the commission of that suicide by torture and instigation, and thereby you committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Brima Sugar Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT384TriDel
1. This is an application, merely for stay of the execution of the order under Appeal. It is not expressly one for dispensing with the deposit in terms of S. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the Act), notwithstanding that in answer to a query in the Memorandum of Appeal, it was stated that an application for dispensing with the deposit of the duty in issue was made. Presumably, the reference was to this application only, for there is no other application. In the circumstances, we treat this application as one under S. 35F of the Act also, since there can be no question of a stay of execution of the order under Appeal, unless the deposit in terms of S. 35F is dispensed with in the first instance.2. In the course of his submissions, Shri Rangaswamy for the Applicant, relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1985 E.L.T. (19) 22Assistant Collector of C.E., West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd.], submitted that this was pre-eminently a case where an interim ord...
Tag this Judgment!Himalaya Paper Machinery (Pvt.) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT488TriDel
1. The present application is with reference to Stay Order No.C-1/1985, dated 4-1-1985. By the said order, the Bench directed the Applicants to pay in cash Rs. 60,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 2,42,689.41 demanded from them as duty and furnish, to the satisfaction of the concerned Collector, a bank guarantee for the balance of the duty amount. Subject to compliance with this direction, the Bench stayed the recovery of the amount till the hearing and disposal of the appeal.2. The present appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government against Order No. 60-B, dated 20-3-1983 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.3. In the present application, it is urged, apart from the inability of the applicants to comply with the terms and conditions of the Stay Order on account of difficult financial position, that pre-deposit of duty is not necessary in the present matter since the revision application was filed on 1-6-1982, that is, before Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Ravinder Nath Sharma Vs. Nirmal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT490; 1985(9)DRJ128
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) A petition under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) was brought by Smt. Nirmal Sharma and her son Nagesh Sharma (alias Rinkoo) against Ravinder Nath Sharma for maintenance for herself and her minor son Nagesh Sharma and which was dismissed vide judgment dated 3rd June, 1981 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. A criminal revision being No. 36/81 was filed by Nirmal Sharma and Nagesh Sharma challenging the magistrate's order and the revision was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Delhi and setting aside the order of the learned magistrate, maintenance at the rate of Rs 300.00 per month and Rs. 100.00 per month was allowed respectively to Nirmal Sharma and her minor son Nagesh Sharma w.e.f. 29th October, 1977, the date of making the petition under section 125 of the Code. (2) Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ravinder Nath Sharma has filed this ...
Tag this Judgment!Boota Mal and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT934TriDel
1. This application under Section 130 (1) of the Customs Act (the section is incorrectly mentioned as 131 (1) in the application) is by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, the respondent in the appeal, for making a reference to the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi of a question of law said to arise out of the order of this Tribunal dated 6-8-1984 in the appeal.2. The appeal itself had been received on transfer from the Government before whom it had been pending on the appointed date as a Revision Petition preferred by the respondents to this application. When the appeal was taken up the Departmental Representative had pointed out that in so far as the penalty levied was less than Rs. 10,000/- the Revision Petition should have been retained by the Government itself for disposal in view of the provisions of the proviso 2 to Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act. . He had made the said submission in view of the earlier decision of this Tribunal reported in 1983 ELT 2517.Since the learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT345TriDel
1. This was originally filed as a revision application before the Government of India and on transfer to this Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants carry on the business of manufacture of aerated waters at their 1 factory at Madras. This item was included in the First Schedule w.e.f. 1-3-1970. The rate of duty depended on the value.The appellants have their own transport system for delivery of the goods at the site/door of their customers. They charged in addition to the price of the aerated waters, freight charges at Rs. 2.85 per crate during the period 16-8-1974 to 16-8-1975. The appellants were directed by the Department to declare the assessable value of the product including such freight charges.3. The Supreme Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. held that normal value for assessment has to be fixed on the basis of price for delivery at the factory gate thereby eliminating freight, octroi and other charges involved in the transport of the articles.4. On 1-4-1976, t...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Packers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)LC333Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, -under the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, -has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellants are alleged to have manufactured and cleared waxed paper falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17 valued at Rs. 1,96,429.73 paise during the period from 13-12-1978 to 17-2-1979 without payment of duty which was over and above the exemption limit of Rs. 5 lakhs admissible to them under Central Excise Notification No.71/78, dated 1-3-1978. The allegation was based on the fact that from the bills and invoices issued by the appellants, it was noticed by the Central Excise Authorities that during the period from 1-4-1978 to 17-2-1979, they had sold waxed paper of the value of Rs. 6,96,429.73 paise. Thus after allowing for the exemption of goods upto Rs. 5 lakhs, the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Boota Mal and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT341TriDel
1. This application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act [the section is incorrectly mentioned as 131(1) in the application] is by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, the respondent in the appeal, for making a reference to the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi of a question of law said to arise out of the order of this Tribunal dated 6-8-1984 in the appeal.2. The appeal itself had been received on transfer from the Government before whom it had been pending on the appointed date as a Revision Petition preferred by the respondents to this application. When the appeal was taken up, the Departmental Representative had pointed out that in So far as the penalty levied was less than Rs. 10,000/- the Revision Petition should have been retained by the Government itself for disposal in view of the provisions of the proviso 2 to Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act. He had made the said submission in view of the earlier decision of this Tribunal reported in 1983 ELT 2517. Since the learned counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Bottlers Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT427TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order in Revie passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Madras, dated 24-9-1983.2. The appellants are a private company engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters covered under Item ID of the First Schedule. They were covered under Chapter VIIA. They filed price lists No. 1/79, dated 17-3-1979,1/80 and 2/80 both dated 2-4-1980, 1/80 and 2/80 dated 19-6-1980 and 1/81 dated 16-4-1981 declaring therein the assessable value of their various products as the normal price at which their product was ordinari ly sold in wholesale lots at the time of removal from the place of manufacture. The price lists were provisionally approved by the Assistant Collector under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The transport charges collected by the assessee were not included in the assessable value.3. In these price lists so provisionally approved the Assistant Collector in his order dated 18-9-1981 observed that the price charged for the sale at the factory g...
Tag this Judgment!