Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 76 results (0.021 seconds)Kalicharan and Co. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi389; 1985RLR396
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) By means of this O.M.P. the petitioner Kalicharan Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. Engineers & Contractors, prays for the revocation of the authority of respondent No. 2, the Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle, Hindan Works Khand, Irrigation Deptt. Okhla, as arbitrator and for his removal as such as also for the appointment of an independent person to act as arbitrator. The grounds for his removal as arbitrator, as alleged in this petition, are that he has not used reasonable dispatch in entering upon and proceeding with the reference and making the award for more than two years and that he was the in charge of the work in question and in his capacity as such he expressed his opinion against the petitioner in respect of the payment of the lawful and legal dues of the petitioner. (2) This petition has been resisted by respondents 1 and 3 and the only answer given by them to the grounds alleged by the petitioner for the removal of the ar...
Tag this Judgment!East India Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. S.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT22; 1985(8)DRJ348; 1985RLR292
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for Short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 7th December, 1983 of the Commercial Sub Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code. (2) Briefly the facts are: That Mr. S.P. Gupta plaintiff respondent on 18th October, 1982 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,622.70 on account of price of goods against the defendant-petitioner. Summons of the suit were issued for 19th April, 1983. The petitioner was served with the summons on 3rd February, 1983 but there was no appearance on its behalf on 19th April, 1984. The trial court ordered the defendant to be proceeded ex-parte and fixed 17th August, 1983 for recording ex-parte evidence which was recorded and the suit was adjourned for hearing arguments and orders to 30th September, 1983. (3) The petitioner-defendant on 30th September, 1983 fifed an application to set aside the order proceeding ex-parte supporte...
Tag this Judgment!Bismilla Jan Vs. JaIn Tractors and Auto Spare
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR477
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) COMP. Authority held that Respdt. was not earning much and declined permission. Order was upheld in appeal by Fin. Comm. Petitioned moved High Court. After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds] (2) The object of the Slum Act is the orderly elimination of slums with interim protection for the slum dwellers until they are moved into better dwelling. The Comp. Auth. are given sufficient discretion under the Slum Act to ascertain whether the tenant, who has accommodation in the slum area, is likely to create further slums, if evicted. While exercising this discretion, however the Comp. Auth. can take into account only the factors mentioned in S. 19(4) of the Slum Act. It is well settled that the two factors which have to be taken into consideration are : (a) the availability of alternate accommodation & (b) the financial status of the tenant in order to find out whether he would be in a position to get alternate accommodation in case he was evicted or whether he...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Synthetic Polywood India (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1730Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Synthetic Poly wood India (P) Limited on 21-10-1982 applied for a refund of Rs. 1,96,869.65 as duty paid by mistake during the period 1-4-1982 to 22-9-1982. This was on the basis that they were entitled to avail of the exemption under Notification No. 80/80, as amended, during the financial year 1982-83 but had paid duty by mistake without availing the exemption, payment having been made by adjustment in their personal ledger account. They had sent the refund application with a covering letter giving details of the clearances, etc., which entitled them for exemption under Notification No. 80/80 aforesaid. They pointed out that wooden bobbins, shuttles, etc., manufactured by them were classified under Tariff Item No. 68 upto 27-2-1982 and they had availed of exemption on such manufactures under Notification No. 105/80 but that from 28-2-1982 the said articles were classified under Tariff Item No. 16B and were brought under the heading "specified goods" under Notification No. 80...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Natwarlal Bhikhabhai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT126TriDel
1. This matter arose from notice No. 198/B/SS.1/118/81-CXV, dated 7-11-1981 issued by the Government of India under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 calling upon M/s. Natwar Lal Bhikhabhai to show cause why the order in appeal No. 40/1981, dated 11-3-1981 passed by the Board should not be set aside as it appeared to be not proper or correct.2. The dispute was in respect of the manufacture of acrylic plastic tubes and bangles from methyl methacrylate monomer by M/s. Natwar Lal.The Collector of Central Excise, Ahemdabad ruled that the benefit of exemption Notifications No. 68/71-CE, dated 29-5-1971 and No. 38/73-CE, dated 1-3-1971 was not permissible and that therefore the bangles and tubes produced and cleared in the period January 1977 to December 1979 valued at Rs. 25.26 lakhs should be charged to duty. The Collector also imposed a penalty on the producer.3. In the appeal the Board set aside the penalty on the ground that there had not been any clandestine remo...
Tag this Judgment!Vibhu Kapoor Vs. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi142; ILR1985Delhi649
Prakash Narain, J. (1) The petitioner a young boy. a minor, approaches this Court through his father Major D. R. Kapoor. for issue of a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent for quashing or setting aside the result in regard to the petitioner in paper 2 in English language and or a direction to declare the petitioner as having passed in both the English papers and awarding of a pass certificate showing that he has passed class-X examination conducted by Respondent No. 1 in 1984.(2) The petitioner joined the Cambrian Hall School, at Dehra Dun in 1981. He was a boarder and had been residing in She school hostel. He had been well in his studies and had won several prizes and awards. In March 1984 the petitioner took the Indian School Certificate Examination conducted by the first respondent. Council of Indian Schools Certificate Examination at Centre No. T 353 at Dehra...
Tag this Judgment!Amarjit Singh and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ55
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment of Sh. G.S. Dhaka, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which he found the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh guilty of offences under Sections 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 and also to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 307 Indian Penal Code The respondent in Cr. A. 17/82 Saudagar Singh who was prosecuted also for the same offences was acquitted The connected appeal No. 17/82 has, thereforee, been filed by the State of Delhi challenging the acquittal of Saudagar Singh. (2) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 3rd January, 1980 at about 7-30 Pm Amarjit Singh and Ajit Singh, appellants were hurling abuses in front of House No. 17/14, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, belonging to Public Witness -1 Inderjeet Singh. This was objected to by Inderjeet as a result of which the appellants Amarjit Singh and Ajit...
Tag this Judgment!Tobu Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Joginder Metal Works and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi244; 1986(1)ARBLR421(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) By this order I will decide issues NOS.I, Ia, Sand 3 which have been treated as preliminary issues.(2) The suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of two registered designs, passing off and for rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is the manufacturer of 'mini bike tricycle'. It got the design registered in respect of this mini bike under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') under registration No. 144635. The seat of the mini bike was also got registered under the said Act Under registration No. 144636. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No. I is also engaged in the manufacture of tricycles and defendant No. 2 is engaged in marketing of the tricycles manufactured by defendant No. 1. It was in the month of March 1982 that the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. I, without the consent, permission or license of the plaintiff, had introduced into the market mini bike tricycle with an identical and/or substantially ident...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chander Chowdhary Vs. the Administrator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ302
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under the provisions of Section 3(1), read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods into India and also engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods, viz. wrist watches. The petitioner was arrested in execution of the said order of detention on July 2. 1984 and has been in detention in the Central Jail, Tihar, eve'since. The grounds of detention etc. were served on the detenu in jail on July 6, 1984. (2) The President was pleased to promulgate Ordinance No. 8 of 1984 on July 13, 1984 amending certain provisions of the aforesaid Act. On August 2, 1984 declaration was made in regard to the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9(1) of the aforesaid Act, as amend...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwari Trading Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2312Tri(Delhi)
1. This was originally filed as a revision application before the Secretary to the Government of India and on transfer to the Tribunal is being dealt with as an appeal.2. M/s Maheshwari Trading Corporation, the appellants, filed a Bill of Entry on 19th September, 1980, for the clearance of a consignment of 8" zip fasteners and declared its value as being 0.97 Singapore dollars per dozen. On examination, the goods were seen to be LFC 32' 8" type with pin lock slide. The value declared on the Bill of Entry appeared to the Customs authorities to be on the lower side and the party was asked to explain the same. The explanation given not being considered satisfactory a Show Cause Notice was issued stating that the price of the LFC 32' 8" zip fasteners was approximately Rs. 0.56 paise per piece and that this price was based upon the catalogue price of the manufacturers M/s YKK Zippers (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. It was also stated in the Show Cause Notice that on market inquiry it was confirmed t...
Tag this Judgment!