Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 2 of about 76 results (0.011 seconds)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!Tehl Chand and ors. Vs. Noor Khan
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT32; 1985RLR285
(1) The question for decision in this revision petition is : Whether the execution application is within limitation Tehl Chand, father of the petitioners filed a suit for eviction of the respondent Noor Khan on 20th May, 1958 under section 13(1)(e) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 with respect to a portion of property No. 10020 Gali Naiwala, Nawab Ganj, Pul Bangash, Delhi. He obtained a decree for his eviction on 19th February 1960. Under section 19(1)(b) of the Slum- Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 the decree becomes executable only after obtaining the permission from the Competent Authority under the said Act as the suit premises are situated in a slum area. The decree-holder applied for permission to execute the decree but it was refused on 2nd April, 1962. His appeal filed under section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was also dimissed. Subsequently it appears, the decree-holder filed a suit for possession on the basis of title bu...
Tag this Judgment!Trilochan Singh Gill Vs. Union of India anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT349
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the notification date July 2, 1979 notifying the voluntary retirement from service by the petitioner, a member of Indian Administrative Service with effect from July 2, 1979 under Rule 16(2A) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958. The petitioner further seeks the quashing of the appellate order dated October 27, 1980 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969. (2) The petitioner was selected in Indian Administrative Service in 1954 on the basis of the competitive examination held in 1953 and was allotted the Assam Cadre of I.A.S. in May, 1954. From May, 1954 to August. 1976, the petitioner continued to work on various assignments as an officer of Assam Cadre and in Assam Province, except for the period 1959 to 1964 when the ...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Doyal Co. Vs. Ram Nath Chitkara and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi101; 28(1985)DLT212; 1985RLR414
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control, Act, 1985 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st March, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 19th March, 1979 of the Additional Rent Controller passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act against the appellants.(2) The brief facts are : The appellants M/s. H.M. Doyal Co. were tenants in shop No. 5394, Light Building, 58, G.B. Road, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 27.50 besides other charges. Shri R.N. Chitkara, respondent No. 1 purchased the property by means of a sale deed dated ll the August, 1964, Respondent No. 1 has alleged that in September, 1972 he filed a petition for eviction of the appellants and respondent No. 2 Ram Lal on various grounds including the ground of non-payment of rent. He had alleged in the previous eviction petition that the appellants were in arrears of rent from ;st June, 1971 and they neither paid nor tende...
Tag this Judgment!Durgesh Kumar Ahuja Vs. Vineet Khurana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1195; 28(1985)DLT49; 1985RLR254
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of babe as corpus directing the respondents to produce the petiioner's infant daughter Deepam in Court and make her over to the custody of the petitioner. (2) The controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass. It arises out of tussle for the custody of Miss Deepam, an infant daughter aged about a year of the petitioner. It is common ground between the parties that Smt. Meenakshi Ahuja, daughter of Smt. Sudershan Khurana, respondent No. 2 and sister of Sh. Vineet Khurana, respondent No. 1 was married to the petitioner on 25th of April 1983. Miss Deepam was born to her on 20th January 1984 but as misfortune would have it, Smt. Meenakshi Ahuja died on 28th January 1984 leaving behind her husband and her infant daughter as her only legal heirs. The case of the petitioner is that in order to show sympathy within the respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1621
J.D. Jain, J.1. Both the above mentioned appellants have been convicted of offences under Section 392/34 and Section 397 read with Section 392, Penal Code, by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dt. 28th Sept. 1983. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2007- each for offence under Section 392, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 read with Section 392, I.P.C, However, both the sentences have been made to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved they have preferred separate appeals against their conviction and sentence. Since both these appeals arise out of the same incident and common questions of law and fact arise therein, this judgment of mine shall dispose of both the appeals.2. The prosecution case succinctly is that Rajinder Parshad Sharma (PW1) and Krtehan Kumar Sharma (PW2) were employed as salesman at A.A.U.I. Service Station-cum-Petrol Pump, Willingdon Crescent, New Delhi, at the relevant time....
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1615Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter, filed as a Revision Application before the Government of India under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and now transferred as an appeal before the Tribunal, Shri S.P. Kampani, Consultant, appears before us on-behalf of the appellants and Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, S.D.R., on behalf of the respondent.2. Briefly, the facts are that on 22nd April, 1975, the appellants were issued a show cause notice that they have contravened the Central Excise Rules inasmuch as they have removed 872.780 M.Ts. of re-rollable steel scrap of steel products such as end-cuts, short-length pieces and defectives falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 26AA on various dates in March, 1974, without payment of duty at appropriate rate, without giving correct description of goods in Excise documents and without including them in the classification lists. It is stated that they were incorrectly described as medium melting scraps under Tariff Item 26, which was then leviable to B...
Tag this Judgment!George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1764Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the refund claim of the appellants for Rs. 46,413.57 made in terms of the exemption Notification No. 198/76-Central Excises, dated 16-6-76 (commonly known as incentive scheme for higher production) was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of being time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The said authorities held that the claim pertained to the period from 3-4-76 to 31-3-77 and since it was submitted on 19-4-78, much beyond the time limit of six months, it was hit by the limitation. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Collector, the appellants filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been taken up as the subject appeal.2. During the hearing before us today, the appellants relied on the following two orders of this Tribunal:(C.E.G.A.T.)New Jatiaga Valley Tea Estates Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong. (2) 1983 E.L.T. 2426 (C.E.G.A.T.)Neelamalai Teal Coffee...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. By the present application the applicants pray for dispensing with deposit of duty Rs. 7,70,581.91 and penalty Rs. 1 lac. We have heard Shri R.N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate in support of the application and Shri V. Laxmikumaran, SDR for the respondent in opposition. Shri Bajoria argued that the order of the Collector of Central Excise suffered from several glaring infirmities. The Collector held the applicants liable to duty on cement purchased from market. No finding had been given in respect of Annexure 11 to the show cause notice. Rate of duty applied was with reference to the date of notice and not to the date of removal of the goods. This he submitted was against the decision of the Board in Shabnam Electronics case recorded in 1981 ELT 503. Shri Bajoria argued that in considering dispensing with deposit of duty and penalty under Section 35E not only financial hardship but other relevant factors like merits of the case had to be taken into consideration and that the applicant was i...
Tag this Judgment!Pritam Singh Vs. Smt. Narinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]160ITR899(Delhi)
S.B. Wad, J.1. This civil revision is directed against the order of Sub-Judge (C. K. Chaturvedi) dated May 11, 1983, in Suit No. 336 of 1976. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the preliminary ground by the learned Sub-Judge. The plaintiff had filed the suit against his wife for a permanent injunction and for restraining the wife from interfering with the petitioner's possession of house No. 71/71, Prem Nagar, New Delhi. In that suit, he had raised the plea that the wife was only a benami owner and that he was the real owner of the property. Section 281A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act requires that the person claiming to be the real owner should obtain a certificate from the income-tax authorities before the suit is filed. In other words, while filing the suit, the alleged real owner should file such a certificate in the court. As the petitioner failed to produce such a certificate, the learned Sub-Judge held that the suit was not maintainable and he dismissed the suit with...
Tag this Judgment!