Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments

Angoori Devi Vs. Sardari Lal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 28(1985)DLT4; 1985RLR288

D.K. Kapoor, J. (1) This is a revision directed against an appellate order passed under the Arbitration Act, 1948 whereby an order passed under Section 34 refusing the stay of the suit has been reversed and the suit has been ordered to be stayed. (2) The learned Sub Judge was trying a suit for rendition of accounts and payment of shares and profits, etc. which was filed by the legal representatives of Shri Kali Ram. It appears that there was a partnership in which Shri Kali Ram deceased was a partner. On the death of Shii Kali Ram that partnership stood dissolved. On the dissolution of the partnership, the legal representatives claimed that they were entitled to get their share from the accounts of the firm and assets and properties thereof. This was the object of the suit. The plea raised on behalf of other partners, who were defendants to the suit was that the suit should be stayed under Section 34, as there was an arbitration clause in the partnership deed. The wording of the said c...

Ram Parshad and ors. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ51; 1985RLR235

H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition, Cr. M(M) 413/83, and two connected petitions, Cr. M(M) 414/83 and Cr. M(M) 539/83, by one Ram Parshad, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising out of three different complaints, filed against the petitioier, one by one Hamid, Cr. M (M) 414/83, and the other two Cr. M(M) 413/83 and Cr. M(M) 539/83, by one Pritam Lal, have really become infructuous in that after protracted hearings of these petitions and scrutiny by me of records of at least 8 other complaints filed by Pritam Lal and Hamid, aforesaid, and certain others, and at the fanged of the hearings. Counsel, who appeared for these two persons, volunteered to withdraw these complaints, as indeed, a criminal revision pending in the Sessions Court against an order by which another complaint of Pritam Lal was dismissed. During the hearing of these petitions and the scrutiny by me of the various complaints a situation was exposed which may perhaps, on further enquiry, turn out to be ...

Naresh Chander and ors. Vs. Hindustan Insectisides Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1985(51)FLR93]; ILR1988Delhi306

S.B. Wad, J.(1) The petitioners are apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 who have successfully completed three years training with Respondent M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. They have undergone this training in the various designated trades for which they we're selected. They have also passed the examination conducted by the National Council for training vocational trades, Ministry of Labour, Government of India in April, 1979. They are awarded National Apprenticeship Certificate. The apprenticeship training was received by them in the Delhi-unit of Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. are the Government company and are an instrumentality of State. The Delhi unit of the said company has framed recruitment and promotion rules for industrial workers. it is an admitted position that the training received by the petitioners is equivalent to the trade requirements of Grade Iii employees of the respondent company. Grade Iii employment includes the Operators, E...

Daya Ram Metal Works Pvt. Ltd Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT392TriDel

1. The appellants effected clearances of the goods manufactured by them without payment of excise duty during the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 claiming benefit of exemption under Notification No. 176/77-CE, dated 18-6-77, on the ground that the goods manufactured by them fell under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET for short) and, further, that the value of the clearances effected by them remained within the respective limits, as stipulated in the aforesaid Notification.However, proceedings were initiated by means of notice to show cause issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bilimora Range-II on 16-12-1980 on the allegations that value of the clearances made by them during the period 1977-78 had exceeded the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs for the whole of the year and also that of Rs. 4 lakhs for the period 1-4-77 to 17-6-77, and that of Rs. 24 lakhs during the period 18-6-77 to 31-3-78. Asa result, duty on clearances in excess of Rs. 24 lakhs during 18-6-77 to 31-3-78, was held...

Alkali and Chemicals Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT635TriDel

1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 35-P 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 dispute in the present appeal in which of the two Central Excise Notifications, namely, 34/73 dated 1-3-1973 or 276/67 dated 21-12-1967 is applicable in the case of the appellants with reference to the 'Benzene' obtained by them in accordance with the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rule, 1944, for the manufacture of BHC technical. Notification No. 34/73 exempts inter alia benzene falling under .Item No. 6 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act from the excise duty leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs. 34/- per K.L. provided that an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector is satisfied that the Benzene is intended for use as solvent in ...

Richpal Singh Vs. Secretary (Labour) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ118

Sultan Singh, J.(1) Richpal Singh, petitioner by this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges (i) the order dated 8th April, 1974 (AnnexureP-l) whereby his period of probation was extended without giving any reasons, (ii) order dated 26th April, 1974 (Annexure P-2) whereby his services were terminated (iii) order dated 6th February, 1975 (Annexure P-3) refusing to refer his disputes to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court and (iv) Order dated 23rd September 1975 (Annexure P-4) refusing to re-consider and refer his grievances to the Industrial Tribunal Court. The petitioner has prayed for his reinstatement in service with retrospective effect and consequential benefits such as payment of salary and other allowances. (2) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with effect from 1st December, 1972 on probation for a period of one year under the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Reg...

Sree Radhakrishna Vegetable Oil Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This matter is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 490/80 dated 23.12.1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay in respect of order of the Asstt. Collector of Central Exercise, Anantapur Division No. V/68/18/59/80 MP 11, dated 7.7.1980 which rejected a refund claim for Rs. 11,550.27 made by M/s. Radhakrishna Vegetable Oil Products Company in their letter dated 30.1.1980.2. The Asstt. Collector said that the claim was for the period 3.10.1977 to 17.2.1979 and so was time barred under Rule 11 Central Excise Rules.3. The Asstt. Collector ignored a letter dated 23.6.1977 written by M/s. Sree Radha Krishna Vegetable Oil Products Company to the Inspector of Central Excise, Gooty wiling him that he was wrong to ask them to pay duty on the soap stock as it was exempted under notification No.115/75-CE dated 30.4.1975. The letter ended by saying: However, if you insist on us paying the duty on soap stock, we request you to treat all the payments as being paid Under Prote...

Hareshkumar and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1782Tri(Delhi)

1. A consignment of 733 bags of citric acid monohydrate BP weighing 18325 kgs valued at Rs. 1,88,642.00 was imported from China in July, 1982, at the Port of Bombay by M/s. Hareshkumar & Company by ship SS CRISTOBAL MARJE. The importers asked for countervailing duty exemption under Notification No.104/82-CE, dated 28-2-1982. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim by his order dated 15-9-82 saying that citric acid found use in varied industries like soft drinks, food, cosmetics, Pharmaceuticals, paints, etc. etc. Its use in drinks, beverages, and pharmaceutical industries was because of general recognition of safety and its pleasant acid taste, high water solubility and chelating and buffering action. But he also said that in technical literature it was not mentioned as a drug. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay also rejected the claim by his Order No.S/49-1591/82. R dated 31-12-1982. There is a sentence in this order which runs: I regret that this evidence is not suffi...

indo Hacks Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT69TriDel

1. In this matter the allegations are that when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory of the appellants by surprise on 21.5.80; they found as follows : (c) there were 63 fully packed wooden boxes containing 69,709 Hacksaw Blades and another 19100 pieces of Hacksaw Blades in cardboard packing which were ready for despatch. In respect of these, the appellants would not produce any registers or other documents which could show accountal and manufacture; (d) there were 3,578 pieces of Hacksaw Blades in excess in the bonded store-room which were not accounted for; (f) the Central Excise officers also visited the Branch Office of M/s. Technis Industries in Raniganj, Secunderabad on 21.5.80 who were allegedly dealing in Hacksaw Blades manufactured by the appellants, M/s. Indo-Hacks Ltd. In these premises, they found 4,331 pieces of Hacksaw Blades which according to the statement of one Shri C.K. Murthy, representative of the Branch Office were actually supplied by M/s. Indo-Hacks L...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Old Village Industries P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1987]165ITR88(Delhi)

Kapur, J. 1. There is a preliminary objection regarding this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition was filed on May 12, 1980. But was directed to be returned by the Deputy Registrar on May 15, 1980. There were four objections out of which we are only concerned with objections Nos. 1 and 4. The first objection was 'the petition should be duly signed by counsel'. The fourth objection was 'date of acceptance should be given in the power of attorney'. The petition was duly signed by the then standing counsel, Shri M. L. Verma, but it was refiled on February 9, 1982. At the same time, the power of attorney was also completed by putting the date 'May 12, 1980'. We find that there is a difference between the signatures of Shri M. L. Verma on the two documents but we are told that the signatures are his. So, this question does not survive. 2. The only question now surviving is that the completed petition was filed on February 9, 1982. The limitation period is ...