Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 76 results (0.021 seconds)Rishi Ram Vs. Kapoori Devi Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR310
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) One Chhoteylal and his firm were proceeded for insolvency and suit property was sold in Court auction to Respdt. 1 Chhoteylal's 3 sons presented objections. Later on petitioner withdrew from it and filed a separate suit. Their objections were that property was ancestral in which Chhoteylal had l/6th share. Petitioner in his suit was denied interim Rishi Ram v. Kapoori Devi etc. injunction. Parties agreed to refer their disputes to arbitrators. Latter's award was filed in Insolvency Court. Parties agreed not to object. The 3 sons (including petitioner) paid major amount but defaulted about las. payment with the result that Respdt. 1 became entitled to possession. She applied for it. Petitioner asked for revival of his suit alleging that award was neither filed nor made rule of the court and was not binding on him. During proceedings, for purposes of stay, Adj allowed the sons to deposit balance. Ultimately order was against petitioner and he approached High Court. Aft...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Devi Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(2)Crimes893; 1985(9)DRJ105
Prakash Narain, C.J.(1) Sunder Singh has been detained by virtue of an order passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods and also preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, viz..wrist watches (foreign origin) into India. The formal order authenticated in the name of the Administrator is dated October Ii, 1984. In execution of the said order the petitioner was arrested and is at present lodged in Central Jail, Tihar. The Administrator had, in fact, approving the proposal sent by the Customs Department to preventively detain Sunder Singh passed the order qua his detention on October 1,1984 Smt. Kamla Devi, the wife of the aforesaid detenu, has approached this court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus or any other order, writ or directi...
Tag this Judgment!Charanjit Lal Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1541; 1985(1)Crimes1115; 28(1985)DLT92; 1985(9)DRJ135
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The above-mentioned petitioners have been convicted of offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (for short IPC') in different cases and have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life. Charanjit Lal was convicted on 10th January 1980, Sunder Lal was convicted on 12th November 1979 and Vijay Singh was convicted on 6th January 1977 They have moved these petitions through Jail complaining of refusal on the part of the Delhi Administration to grant them furlough as envisaged in letter No. F. 18/(27)/55-Home dated 7th March 1958 of the Delhi Administration to the Inspector General of Prisons etc. The relevant provisions of the said letter are reproduced below for ready reference : 'PART-1(Parole) (Amended vide I (i) A prisoner may be released on parole for such letter No. period as the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, may order; F. 18/59/62- parole shall be admissible for :- Home dt. 16-9-63) (a) Seeing any sick or dying member of the family. (b) any other sufficient caus...
Tag this Judgment!Y.A. Bawa Vs. Srinivas Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ337
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition, which is directed against order dated 18th December 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, succinctly are that way back on the night between 13/14th April 1971 a raid was conducted on premises No. 4698, Gali Umrao Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, by officials of the Customs Department pursuant to some specific secret information. Shri Phool Chand Jain, father of the respondent-Srinivas Jain was present at the house. There was a small room inside a bigger room which was found locked from outside. The father of the respondent was asked to open the lock but he told the Customs officials that the said room was in possession of a person who was known to his son Srinivas i.e. the respondent. Eventually the lock of the room was broken open and the father of the respondent when told to cooperate with the Customs officials offered to bring out the incriminating goods contained in two steel trunks and one cardboard etc. Accordingly, he went i...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR81]; (1995)IIILLJ498Del
Chadha, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash an order dated 29th July 1981, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi refusing to accord approval sought by the Management in respect of the action of dismissal of workman by an application under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. Shri Ram Avadh, respondent No. 4 (workman) was in the employment of M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. (For short called the 'Management'). Me was charge-sheeted on 4th July 1977 for beating another workman in the factory and creating indiscipline there. At the same time keeping in view the seriousness of the charges, the workman was suspended from the service. Me was directed to remain present in the security department situate at the main gate at 10 a.m. so that if there was any letter or order which could be given to the workman. An Explanationn was submitted by the workman on 30th July 1977. The Management having found th...
Tag this Judgment!Bee Emm (India) Exports and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT565TriDel
1. This is appeal dated 23-11-1981 filed as a revision application on behalf of M/s. Bee Emm (India) Exports, New Delhi against Order No.340-341/81, dated 4-5-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi. This order of the Board arose from Order No. 33/80, dated 15-9-1980 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi. On the day we heard this appeal we also heard the appeal filed by Shri Brij Mohan Mehra, Proprietor of M/s, Bee Emm (India) Export. As the order of the Collector of Customs and the order of the Board dealt with both these persons M/s. Bee Emm (India) Exports and Mr. Brij Mohan, we heard the arguments together on the same day i.e.8-1-1985.2. The learned Counsed Mr. Jain who appeared on behalf of M/s. Bee Emm (India) Exports and Mr. Brij Mohan Mehra began by saying that he had asked for the seizure report but this had not yet been supplied to him although the Bench had ordered the supply of the seizure report, when the case last ca...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Packaging Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC812Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal arc that the appellants manufacture corrugated board out of duty paid kraft paper purchased by them from the market. Duty on corrugated board manufactured by the appellants prior to 24.1.1978 was 5% ad valorem under Notification No.46/71-CE dated 24.4.1971 as amended. On 24.1.1978 the effective rate of duty on Kraft paper including kraft liner or corrugated medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grams was raised from 30% to 371/2% ad valorem by Notification No. 15/78-CE dated 24.1.1978 and Notification No. 46/71-CE was amended by Notification No. 14/78-CE dated 24.1.1978 according to which corrugated board was exempted from the whole of duty if it was proved to the satisfaction of the proper officer that the corrugated board of the type known as kraft liner or corrugated medium of a substance equal to or exceeding 65 grams per square metre and where the duty has been paid at the rate of 37% ad valorem.2. As per the allegations made by th...
Tag this Judgment!Balhar Singh Vs. Goverdhan Dass Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR317
H.L. Anand, J.(1) One Sohan Singh (S.S.) owns B-71, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area and was having Saw Mill with machinery, office room etc. He let out all these to Balhar Singh (B.S.) on 28.5-76 and put him into exclusive possession of the plot who began running the Saw Mill. Subsequently S.S. wanted to increase the rent or alternatively to quit, and with that view got the power and light connections disconnected in Jan. 1979. Petitioner there upon filled prosecution u/s 45/48 of Delhi Rent Act against S.S. in March, 1979, who was summoned as accused in that case. S.S. then filed a suit against tenant torrent in 1979, which was ultimately dismissed. S.S. then filed eviction petition against petitioner in Sept., 1980 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22-10-81. In 1981, Sohan Singh, wanting to emigrate to Canada, planned to dispose of the property, contemplated its sale to one Gulab and a threat to dispossess petitioner was given who, on 5-3-81 filed suit for injunction against S.S. and G...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mewar Textiles Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT730TriDel
1. When the Appeal was called on for hearing, neither the Respondent nor anyone on his behalf, was present, despite sufficient notice vide letter dated 20-12-1984. The Appeal was accordingly heard and decided ex-parte the Respondent, in terms of rule 21 of the CEGAT (PROCEDURE) RULES, 1982 [in par i materia with rule 17(2) of Order XLI, CPC].2. The facts, in short, giving rise to. the instant Appeal, would appear to be - (a) the Respondent, manufacturing cotton yarn, deposited an amount of Rs. 7,000/- under T.R.6 Challan on 15-6-1979, although the amount that should have been deposited, was only in a sum of Rs. 6,500/-; (b) the Respondent explained the excess deposit of Rs. 500/- to be due to a mistake and applied for permission to adjust this amount towards future payment of duty. The said application was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 6-2-1980; (c) notwithstanding the aforesaid application, the Respondent had, suo motu, entered a credit of Rs.6,500/- only in th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Scientific Glass and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC452Tri(Delhi)
1. As a common issue is involved in all the 8 appeals listed above, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this combined order.2. The appeals listed at Sl. Nos. 2, 4 and 7 above are supplementary appeals. The Department at first filed only one consolidated appeal as the Order-in-Appeal passed in these cases was also a combined one. On being pointed out that a separate appeal would have to be filed for each of the Order-in-Original involved, the Department later filed the supplementary appeals and simultaneously prayed for condonation of the delay. During the hearing before us, both the respondents stated that in the circumstances of the case they had no objection to the delay being condoned. We condoned the delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Consideration of the appeals on merits was then taken up.3. The appeals involve two main questions for our consideration. The substantive issue is whether broken glass, known in the local language as 'Bhagar' or as 'Bha...
Tag this Judgment!