Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 3 of about 71 results (0.019 seconds)Kenneth Solomon Vs. Dan Singh Bawa
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi1; 28(1985)DLT229; 1985(9)DRJ292; 1985RLR438
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Dr. (Mrs.) C.L. Sury was lessee of house No. 72, Baber Road, New Delhi under the respondent Dan Singh Bawa. The agreed rent was Rs. 37.82 per month. She died in October, 1967. (2) On April 22, 1968 the landlord brought an application against the present appellant Kenneth Solomon for recovery of possession of the tenancy premrises. The eviction was claimed under proviso (b) to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act) on the allegations that the tenant had left no heir and had in her life time parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favor of the appellant without the written consent of the landlord. (3) The appellant defended the claim. The plea raised was that that contractual tenancy in favor of Dr. Sury had not been determined. The tenancy rights devolved on him and another person under a will dated March 31,1957. In case it was held by the court that he could not inherit the tenancy rights under the will...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Importers and Exporters Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT709TriDel
1. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported Viscose Staple Fibre and claimed clearance of the consignment under Item No. 1 of appendix 10 of the April, 1981 -March, 1982, Import Control Policy.They got the fibre converted into yarn on job work for ultimate use in the manufacture of hosiery goods. The conversion of the fibre into yarn on job basis was done at 3.C. Mills Limited, Gwalior. The Collector of Customs, held that the appellants were not entitled to import viscose staple fibre as raw material for the manufacture of knitted fibre (hosiery goods) inasmuch as the staple fibre was really the raw materials for the manufacture of yarn and it was the yarn so manufactured that was the raw materials for the manufacture of the hosiery goods. On this basis, the imports were held as unauthorised and the goods were confiscated. They were, however, allowed to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 3,000/- each. The appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, was...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Associates and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2118Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals are directed against two orders of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. Three of the appeals, relating to the first three appellants, arise out of the Additional Collector's Order No. 39/83, dated 30-11-83. The appeal of M/s. Soundtrek arises out of the Additional Collector's Order No. 38/83, dated 24-11-83.Since the facts and charges in all the four cases are similar and all four appellants were respresented by the same learned consultant, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The charge basically was that the appellants were engaged in the recording of magnetic cassette tapes or spool magnetic tapes and thereby manufacturing goods falling under Item 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule without obtaining Central Excise licences and without filing classification lists and price lists or paying duty. They were accordingly called upon to show cause why penalties should not be imposed upon them under Rules 9...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Sarup Manocha Vs. Lalita Manocha
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi491; 28(1985)DLT86; 1985(9)DRJ342
S.B. Wad, J.(1) The parties were married at Delhi on February 27, 1970, They come from lower middle class families. Both were employed even at the time of marriage. The wife left the matrimonial home in July 1970 allegedly for purposes of delivery and never returned. A female child was born to them on 15th of December, 1970. On February 27. 1971 the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act. making desertion as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) the husband filed a petition for divorce. Thereafter he got the petition for conjugal rights dismissed as withdrawn on 22.9.1976. (2) The husband's allegation in the petition was that the wife was working in the Institute of applied manpower and her salary in July 1970 was Rs. 475.00 . When she was pregnant in July 1970, her parents took her to their own residence on the pretext that she would be looked after better in her pare...
Tag this Judgment!Heminder Singh Bisht Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985RLR444
Kirpal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of 2 petitions being C.W. No. 225/85 and Cw 551/85 wherein the challenge is to the non-implementation of a panel which is stated to have been prepared by the respondent for making appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical). (2) Briefly stated, the admitted facts, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of these petitions are. Both the petitioners held Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. They got themselves registered with Employment Exchange. It appears that respondent wanted to make appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (E & M). The respondent-Authority asked for names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange. It also circulated a notice amongst its own employees to the effect that they could apply for the post of Junior Engineer (E & M) if they satisfied the eligibility condition. (3) It is an admitted case of the parties that for the said posts selection was held by a Committee during January and March, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi374
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) CAPT. Ram Kumar. the appellant was court-martialled and dismissed from the Indian Army, He filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to have that order quashed, and obtain reinstatement. By a judgment dated 11th March 1980. his petition was dismissed by a single judge of this court. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against that judgment.(2) At the material time, Capt. Ram Kumar was attached lo the 5/3 Gorkha Rifles. In 1976, this unit was at Field in the vicinity of Nasirabad. The Commanding Officer of this unit was Lt. Col. V. Badhwar. During April, June and July 1976, a number summaries of evidence were recorded in respect of certain offences alleged to have been committed by Capt. Ram Kumar. On 27th September 1976, he was put under close arrest in anticipation of trial by court martial.(3) By an order dated 19th October 1976. Mai. Gen. S. S. Brar, General Officer Commanding 12 Infantry Division, convened a General Court Marti...
Tag this Judgment!Surma Valley Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1873Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants were denied the benefit of exemption Notification No.83/83-Central Excises, dated 1-3-83 during the year 1983-84 on the ground that the total value of their clearances of all excisable goods in the preceding financial year had exceeded the stipulated ceiling limit of Rs. 25 lakhs. The appellants contest this finding.2. During the hearing before us, the appellants stated that break-up of their relevant clearances was as under :Plywood for teachests 1,15,703.91 9,73,162.30Teachests "Battens" 2,08,566 Sets 5,14,015.78Sawn Timber 50,486 Cft. 11,18,177.78Fuel wood and saw dust 39,953.57 ___________________ They argued that the item 'sawn timber' had been held to be non-excisable by the Tribunal in their order reported at 1984 (16) E.L.T. 317 (Tribunal)-Sanghvi Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, "On careful consideration of the matter we agree with the appellants that sawn timber is not a different article from log wood as both are timbers or wood only...
Tag this Judgment!Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT832TriDel
1. The factory told the Collector of Central Excise, Indore that the slurry resulted from their treatment of hydrochloric acid with lime in order to neutralise it. The slurry was a waste, an effluent, and was thrown away. A firm by the name of M/s. Jameco Agencies took the slurry for recovery of calcium chloride, but this forms a very small part of the waste thrown away by Gwalior Rayon Factory. The slurry waste was not sold to Jameco Agencies.2. No contradiction was made to the above story in the Collector's order, which records that the assessee wrote to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Nagda in March 1979 that neutralization of hydrochloric acid was a regular feature. The Collector ended his order (No. 2/80 T.I. 14G dated 28-7- 1981) by saying that neutralized hydrochloric acid in the form of slurry constituted goods on which duty should have been paid when supplied to a customer.3. The learned counsel for the factory told us at the Bench that the goods was of no use to them. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre Vs. Lt. Governor of De ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi101; 1985LabIC1321
S.S. Chadha, J.1. This application raises an interesting question of law as to the scope and effect of newly added Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. Shri Bharat Singh (for short workman) joined the management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi for short Management) as a Peon against a permanent regular post and thereafter promoted as a Daftry. The Management by memorandum dated September 13, 1975 informed the workman that his services are no longer required with effect from September 13, 1975 (afternoon) and, thereforee, his services were thereby terminated in terms of the Management's memorandum dated May 25, 1958 and Estt/T.B. 6360, dated September 2, 1965. He was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. At the time when the services of the workman were terminated, the Management-hospital was not recognised as Industry under Section 2(j) of the Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(2)ILR(Del)101; 1985LIC1321
S. S. CHADHA J.(1) THIS application raises an interesting question of law as to the scope and effect of newly added Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).(2) SHRI Bharat Singh (for short workman) joined the management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, and New Delhi (for short Management) as a Peon against a permanent regular post and thereafter promoted as a Daftry. The Management by memorandum dated September 13, 1975 informed the workman that his services are no longer required with effect from September 13, 1975 (afternoon) and, therefore, his services were thereby terminated in terms of the Management's memorandum dated May 25, 1958 and Estt/t. B. /6360, dated September 2, 1965. He was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. At the time when the services of the workman were terminated, the Management-hospital was not recognised as Industry under Section 2 (J) of the Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court i...
Tag this Judgment!