Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 96 results (0.016 seconds)Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985(51)FLR219]; (1994)IIILLJ42Del
Ms. Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10(l)(c)and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs' Notification No. 2/2/61-Judl. 11 dated 24th March, 1961 Delhi Administration by an order dated 4th May, 1967 referred an industrial dispute of a workman Shri Ujagar Singh (respondent No. 3 herein) for adjudication to Shri V.P. Aggarwal, the then Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.2. The petitioner is a private limited company and respondent No. 3-Ujagar Singh was employed to work as Conductor with the petitioner-company. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No. 3 committed certain acts of misconduct and, thereforee, an inquiry was ordered to be instituted against him and on receipt or the Inquiry Report the petitioner-company decided to dismiss the petitioner from service. Since the conciliation failed, the Conciliation Officer submitted his report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disp...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT918(Del)
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. The petitioners, a Hindu undivided family firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 carry on the business as exporters of iron ore at Margao, Goa. The facts of the case as stated in the petition lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioners entered into a contract on 26th May, 1966 with a Japanese company for sale of Goan iron ore on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract. The total quantity to be sold was 2 lacs dry metric tonnes of iron ore. The petitioners shipped from Marmagoa Harbour eight consignments of 1.56,421 metric tonnes of Goan iron ore by certain steamers. The relevant sniping bills were presented to the Customs authorities at Marmagoa in respect of these, consignments. Major part of the iron ore fines allowed in each of the shipment was authorised by the Directorate Mines, Government of Goa who had issued permits authorising export of said iron ore fines. The case of the petitioners is that the description of these goods in...
Tag this Judgment!ilac Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT532TriDel
1. M/s. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co. Limited, Bombay, filed two appeals dated 9th March, 1981 and 31-7-1984 against the order-in-appeal No. 1364/80 and No. 1365/80, dated 20th September, 1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The original appellants, M/s. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co.now call themselves M/s. ILAC Limited, the name of a wholly owned subsidiary of Calico Company. We shall, therefore, deal with this appeal as an appeal by M/s. ILAC Limited.2. The dispute arises in respect of the calcium carbide and the acetylene manufactured by M/s. ILAC Limited. The factory manufactures polyvinyl chloride resin and chlorinated solvents. During the course of the manufacture of these two commodities, certain intermediate compounds and substances are created and are consumed and used in the same factory. The first intermediate substance that comes into existence is calcium carbide. The raw materials used in the manufacture...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Searsole Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT343TriDel
1. The present appeal is directed against Order No. 251-CE/MRT/83, dated 19-11-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of M/s. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter called the Respondents) that coated precipitated chalk was eligible for exemption from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 23/55, dated 29-4-1955.The Assistant Collector had denied the benefit of this exemption and the Appellate Collector set aside the Assistant Collector's order and extended the benefit of the exemption.2. We have heard Shri S.N Khanna, Departmental Representative for the Appellant and Shri T.M. Ansari, Advocate for the Respondents.3. Notification No. 23/55 issued by the Central Government under Central Excise Rule 8(1) exempts several specified products from the whole of the duty leviable thereon under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The entry relevant for our present purpose re...
Tag this Judgment!Automotive Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1585Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s. Automotive Enterprises, Bombay, imported two consignments of bearings of various sizes from the United Kingdom, the suppliers being M/s. Harvin Exports, London. They were main bearings with Part No. AJH 5285 and connecting rod bearings Part No. AJH 5286, prices respectively being shown as- When the goods were examined they were found to be Glacier Brand bearings. The department issued a show cause notice dated 18-2-1978 pointing out that the price list dated 7-2-1977 prevailing at the time of importation as supplied by the Authorised Indenting Agents M/s.Overseas Manufacturers Sales Company, Bombay, showed the correct prices for the main bearings and connecting rod bearings to be respectively- 1.37 and 1.19 It was therefore charged that the appellants had misdeclared the value, rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and(m) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. The appellants were calle...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Kathrani and ors. Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT10; 1986(10)DRJ104; ILR1985Delhi618
H.C. Goel, J.(1) On June 11, 1981 Shri B.K. Ahuja, Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation of Delhi purchased a sample of Orange Emulsion for analysis under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (For short the Act) and the rules made there under from the premises of M/s. Kumar Trading Company, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi. The sample was found to be mis-branded on analysis by the public analysis analyst vide his report dated July 2,1981. A complaint was accordingly filed by the Delhi Administration through the Senior Prosecutor against 17 persons under Section 7 of the Act to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. Krishan Kumar, accused No. 1 was prosecuted for his having sold the sample to the Food Inspector. The firm M/s. Kumar Trading Co. and its two partners Shri Ram Lal and Shri Pritam Lal were prosecuted as the firm and its two partners respectively for having stocked and sold the sample of the commodity. The further allegations in the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Tyagi and Co. and anr. Vs. Yash Pal and
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT15; 1986(11)DRJ172
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 26th July, 1984 of the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code for leave to produce documents.(2) Briefly these are the facts. M/s. Tyagi & Co., Plaintiff No. I through Shri BhuDev, Plaintiff No. 2 filed a suit on 15th November, 1980 for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16th November, 1970. It has been alleged that plaintiff No. 2 and one D K. Khanna were partners in terms of a deed dated 16th November, 1970 to carry on partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Tyagi & Co. (plaintiff No. 1), that Nar Dev son of Ganga Sahai agreed to sell 44 Bighas 6 bids was of land situated at Jharoda, Majra Burari, Delhi-9 to the partnership firm Tyagi & Co. in terms of an agreement to sell dated 16th November, 1970 in consideration of Ri 44.300.00 out of which a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjit Lal Vs. Man Bhauti and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT353b; 1986(10)DRJ72; 1985RLR379
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th January, 1984 of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's application for bringing him on record as legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor Murari Lal. (2) There arc the brief facts. Murari Lal judgment debtor was in possession of a room on second floor of House No. 4902 Gali Dakoton Wali, Laddo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi. Smt. Man Bhauti, respondent No. I filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages against him with respect to the said premises. The suit was decreed on 12th November, 1975. (3) Smt. Savitri Devi, respondent No. 2 on 18th January, 1982 filed an application for execution of the said decree for possession. She alleged that she purchased the entire property including the premises in occupation of Murari Lal judgment debtor by means of sale deed dated 22nd October. 1981 ...
Tag this Judgment!Foto India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2095Tri(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of the appellants.-applicant (hereinafter cailed applicant) application under subsection (5) of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 for condonation of delay in filing appeal after expiry of the time-limit fixed under Sub-section (3) ibid.2. The order dated 22-2-1982 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras challenged before the Tribunal through appeal in respect of which the present application for condonation of delay is filed, was communicated to the applicant on 31-8-1982. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 129-A of the Act an appeal has to be filed within three months from the date on which the order appealed against is communicated. Thus under this provision the applicant, should have filed the appeal by 30-11-1982, The applicant, however, filed appeal to the Tribunal on 29-11-1983.3. The application does not specifically state when the time-'limit for filing the appeal expired though in Para 3 of the application, there is a reference to a reci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Dalmia
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]163ITR517(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J. 1. The statement of case for these four references sets out four questions but later on states that the fourth question was not being referred. The result is that there are three questions referred to us which are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessed's claim of adjustments to the balance-sheet dated February 20, 1961, by reference to a sum of Rs. 47.31 lakhs and on that basis directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the necessary relief to the assessed for the assessment years 1965-66 and l966-67 by adopting course No. (ii) pointed out by it in its order for the assessment year 1962-63 in I.T.A. Nos. 3204 and 6050 of 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in treating the municipal valuation of Rs. 8,583 and Rs 8,283 as the annual letting value in respect of the properties situated at No. 3, Sikandra Road and 9 Mansingh R...
Tag this Judgment!