Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 71 results (0.020 seconds)Survir Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Market ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi193
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) By means of this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) .the petitioner M/s. Survir Enterprises (P) Limited having its registered office at Chandigarh and Head Office at Osian Building. Nehru Place, New Delhi wants the respondent Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., and another Bombay and State of Maharastra to file the arbitration agreement in Court and for the direction of the Court to refer the disputes and differences between the parties to arbitration.(2) An agreement dated 19-1-1983 was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. whereby the former agreed to sell to the latter 50,000 M.T. of Parimal raw rice on terms and conditions set out therein. This transaction was entered into by respondent no. 1 as agent of' and at the direction of and with the specific approval of...
Tag this Judgment!Adesh Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ233; 28(1985)DLT126
H.C. Goel, J.(1) These two appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of the Court of Shri P.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated June 7, 1983 by which he convicted Adesh Kumar and Jagdish appellants under section 394 read with section 397 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to seven years' Ri and a fine of Rs. 500.00 each there under. The prosecution case stated in brief is that on July 26, 1978 at about 9.15 p.m. Dharam Singh Pw was standing at the bus stand Beriwala Bagh, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. Three persons including the two appellants Adesh Kumar and Jagdish had come in the scooter of Narender Kumar Public Witness 3. These three persons got down from the scooter at some distance from the said bus stand. The third accomplice of the appellants went away. The two appellants went near Dharam Singh at the bus stand. They both showed a knife to Dharam Singh and told him to give to them whatever be had. Dharam Singh took out a currency note of rupee ten from his pocket and ga...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Shankar and Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1700
J.D. Jain, J.1. Both the appellants have been convicted of an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (for short IPC) by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dt. 30th July. 1983. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Feeling aggrieved they have preferred separate appeals mentioned above against their conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th May, 1981 at about 10.30 p.m., C. R. Bose (PW 8) was going on his two wheeler scooter bearing registration No. DEI-3900 on Station Road, having entered the same from the crossing called New Partap Chowk. He was told by two boys that the road blocked ahead However, he paid no heed to the same but when he reached main Palam Road he found that the road was completely blocked and there was no space to go ahead with the vehicle. So he returned to New Partap Chowk. As he was near it, two boys standing there stopped him. They had a dagger each in their hands...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT476TriDel
1. Question for decision in this Revision Application to Government of India transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it is whether Polyproplene Multifilament filter cloth for Rotary Drum Filter imported by the appellants should have been classified as fabric under Tariff Item No. 22 of the Central Excise Tariff or as component parts of machinery and thus held exempt from additional duty (hereinafter called CV duty).2. The appellant by BE Cash No. 292-D dated 2-4-1976 SS Indian Endurance imported a number of Polypropylene filter cloth (hereinafter called the goods) cut to specific shape and size and of special quality as sparepart of their Rotary Drum filter machine used in Phospheric acid plant. Bombay Custom House, at the time of clearance for the purpose of basic customs duty assessed the goods as spare-parts of machinery under Item 72(3)/72(b) ICT. For the purposes, however, of additional duty (CV duty) the goods were assessed as man-made fabrics...
Tag this Judgment!Amritlal Lalubhai Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT908TriDel
1. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellants manufactured metallised yarn. These are narrow width strands slit from metal-coated polyester film. They are used as imitation zari. The short point that falls for decision before us is the classification of metallised yarn under the Central Excise Tariff during the period from 28-7-69 to 3-2-72. The Department assessed the goods under item 18 as synthetic yarn. The appellants maintained that the goods correctly fell under item 15A(2) as an article of plastic and on that basis they applied for refund of the duty of Rs. 1,24,822/- on 27-2-72. The appellants claim that they had paid this duty under item 18 under protest. The lower authorities upheld the classification under item 18 and rejected the refund claim of the appellants. The appellants then filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been taken up as the subject appeal.2. During the hearing before us, the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT548TriDel
1. Appeals Nos. ED(SB) 2870/83-B to 2874/83-B have been filed by the party challenging the order of the authorities below and demanding a duty in all Rs. 16,04,753.63 P. for the period from 23-7-79 to 21-1-83.The department has filed Appeal No. ED (SB) 166/84-B in respect of the amount disallowed for the period from 1-3-75 to 22-7-79. As common questions of facts and law are involved in all these appeals they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. M/s.Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd., Guttack are being referred to as Appellants and the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar as Respondent for the purpose of all the above six appeals.2. All the appeals are directed against the order dated 13-9-83 of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta. The appellants manufacture pipes, tubes, poles, etc. Tariff Item No. 26AA was introduced to the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 24-4-1962. Excise duty was collected from the...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Mody and Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT484TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of Order No. S/49-11/81-LC dated 22-4-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. M/s. Mody and Brothers (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) filed a revision application to the Central Government against the said order. On the setting up of this Tribunal, the revision application was transferred to it is terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported a consignment of E-Class Electrical grade paper which was assessed under Heading No. 39.01/06 to basic customs duty (the duty leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975) at 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty at 20% ad valorem. The duty so assessed was paid by the appellants vide Bill of Entry cash No. 4856, dated 28-9-1977. On 3-2-1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act alleging...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Chirkut @ Sanichar Baba Alias Bhoot Nath
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ169
Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) Accused Bhoot Nath was tried by Shri K.P. Verma, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and vide his order dated 18.9.84 the accused was convicted under sections 325 and 302 Indian Penal Code The accused was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325 while he was awarded death sentence under section 302 Indian Penal Code The learned Additional Sessions Judge has made a reference for confirmation of the death sentence along with the proceedings of the case to this court. (2) We have heard Mrs. Ahlawat. amices Curiae for the accused and Mr. R.P. Lao for the State and have also carefully gone through the record of the case. (3) We may make a reference to the brief facts of the case. The prosecution case is that across the Bridge running between Shakarpur and I.T.O. there is a vast stretch of vacant land along the bank of river Jamuna on which there were four jhuggies. out of which o (4) After going through the record of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpa Rani Nanda Vs. Khem Raj Loomba
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ194
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This petition 13 directed against the order dated April 29, 1983 whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner-landlady for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The finding recorded was that there was no satisfactory evidence that the petitioner could not comfortably reside on the first floor. The other finding recorded was that the need of married sons and married daughters of the petitioner could not be looked into. Both these findings have been strenuously assailed before me on behalf of the petitioner. (2) The respondent filed an application (CM. 3380/83) under Order 41 rule 27, Civil Procedure Code . for permission to lead additional evidence. He wants now to set up a case that during the pendency of this revision petition a settlement was arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioner changed the purpose of letting by enhancing the rent. (3) The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chand Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1976RLR171
S. Bharidare, J.(1) C.C.S. (C.C A.) Rules, 1965 which repealed the Civilians in defense Services (C.C.A.) Rules of 1952 & did not contain any provision for delegation of functions by Competent Authority (Director of E.M. & E.) no more authorised Commandant, a delegate of the Director to impose penalty of removal and heave show cause notice and charge sheet issued by the commandant was not legal. Delegation of powers by the Director Em & E on 17.2.67 could not be availed of as the provision under which it was made was not retroactive in operation. Constitution of India, Art. 226. An interim order (show cause notice and charge-sheet) can be challenged if it goes to the root of the matter. The petitioner was appointed as Tin and Copper Smith (Class-111 post) in the grade of Rs. 100-130 in 1960 in Ministry of defense. The appointment letter of the petitioner was issued by the Commandant who was delegated the power by the appointing authority. Since the petitioner was alleged to have violat...
Tag this Judgment!