Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 71 results (0.035 seconds)Angira Devi Gupta Vs. the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi40; 28(1985)DLT413
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the acquisition proceedings pursuant to notification dated November 13, 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declarations dated December 6, 1966 January 2, 1969 under Section 6 of the Act culminating in an Award No. 60/83 dated January 17, 1983 for the acquisition 30 bighas 6 bids was of land belonging to the petitioner situate in village Mehrauli. (2) The facts are not in dispute. In 1959 respondent No. 2 issued a notification No. 15(lll)/59/LSGdated November 13,l959 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notifying that land admeasuring 34070 acres and marked with blocks and description specified in the notification was required by the Government at the public expense for public purpose, namely, the planned development of Delhi. The said notification covered, inter alia, the land of village of Mehrauli but speci...
Tag this Judgment!Bramec Suri (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1880Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an Appeal. The present. Appeal is directed against the Order No.1563 dated 2-9-1977 passed by Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are a private limited company engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, or brake-linings and clutch facings, the two ancillaries falling under item 34A of the C.E.T. At the material time, the appellants were manufacturing some 1,000 to 1,500 different varieties of such products and as the specifications of the products were different to meet different requirements, the prices for the different varieties were also different. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the appellants had filed before the proper officer regular price lists and RT-12s, which were approved and the appellants cleared the goods as per the d...
Tag this Judgment!Central Tool Room Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2088Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 21-8-84 of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This institution was established by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries with the assistance of the funds provided by the Government of Federal Republic of Germany. The main objectives of the Society are : (ii) To increase the efficiency of small-scale industries in the Northern Region in light engineering and allied fields by providing support in the areas of design and production of tools, jigs and fixtures, consultancy services, design and assistance in production planning ; (iii) Training of tool makers for press tools, jigs and fixtures, dies and moulds ; (iv) Conducting short-term and long-term course for the representatives of small scale industries of the area; (v) To develop after research small and medium size tools conforming to the needs of the small-scale industries ; and (vi)...
Tag this Judgment!H.R. Saini Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ86
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner who possesses a degree of Master of Education and a degree in Master of Arts was appointed as Assistant Education Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) on 3rd May, 1961 vide Annexure-11 to the amended writ petition in the scale of Rs. 300- 650. With effect from 1st July, 1970 the Middle & Higher Secondary Schools were transferred to and taken over by the Delhi Administration. The said transfer took place on certain terms and conditions approved by the President. Consequent to this transfer the services of three Assistant Education Officers including the petitioner and one Science Consultant were also transferred to the Delhi Administration w.e.f. 1st July, 1970. As per the terms and conditions, all the employees of the Corporation to be absorbed in the service of Delhi Administration were to be placed in a separate. The employees of the Education Department, Delhi Administration other than those...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Amber Paints
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT297TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Amber Paints, Bombay, the Respondents in the present proceedings, were granted an L-6 Licence by the Central Excise authorities permitting them to obtain toluene/benzene on payment of duty at the concessional rate provided, in Notification No. 35/73, dated 1-3-1973. This notification exempted the two aforesaid products from a portion of the duty leviable thereon subject to the Collector of Central Excise being satisfied, inter alia, that the products were intended for use as solvent or diluent or thinner for the manufacture of paints, varnishes, lacquers and allied materials or for use in painting. Where such use was elsewhere than in the factory of manufacture of the products, the exemption was subject to the compliance with the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Amber Paints accordingly obtained 19.480 Kilo Litres of toluene at the concessional rate of duty and manufactured 37.419 Kilo Litres of...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC(1982)Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd., Madras were paying duty on 32 items of Connecting Rod Bolts concerned in this appeal as falling under Tariff Item 52. But subsequently they sought to reclassify the said 32 items under Tariff Item 68. On adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 4-5-1982 rejected their request. But on appeal the Appellate Collector accepted their contention and ordered reclassirication under Tariff Item 68. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. When the appeal was taken up, Shri Chandrasekharan, learned Counsel for the respondents, raised two preliminary objections. They were : (i) the authorisation by the Collector is not signed by him and the appeal was, therefore, not validly preferred ; (ii) the authorisation does not disclose that the Collector had applied his mind before authorising the filing of the appeal.3. Since these two objections were fundamental to the further...
Tag this Judgment!Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT216TriDel
1. The appellants M/s Reckitt Colman of India Limited are engaged in the manufacture of several products, including barleys of different composition, i. e. Pearl Barley, Purity Barley and Robinson's Patent Barley. These three items were brought under Tariff Item 1 B of the Central Excise Tariff with effect from 1-3-1969. But under notification No. 22/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969 and No. 17/70-C.E., dated 1-3-1970 a general exemption had been granted by Government with reference to goods falling under Tariff Item 1 B, except those mentioned in the Schedule to the said notifications. Pearl barley was mentioned as one of the items in item 10 of the schedule to the notification. There is hence no dispute that it is dutiable. But the appellants had been clearing Purity Barley and Robinson's Patent Barley without observing excise formalities. When they submitted a fresh revised classification list on 19-6-1980, mentioning Pearl Barley as excisable, and the other two as non-excisable being exempt...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Prints and Varnish Works, Modinagar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC106; 1987(12)LC615(Delhi); 1985(21)ELT35(Del)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the orders of respondents 2 and 3 dated January 24, 1981. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are manufacturing colours of different shades, a mixture of calcium carbonate to the extent of 98.50% and pigment dye stuff to the extent of 1.50%. According to the petitioners, they have been classifying the goods under item No. 14-I(5) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Notification No. 23/55 dated April 29, 1955 along with notification dated December 3, 1955. The classification under item No. 14-I(5) reads as 'pigment colours, paints and enamels not otherwise specified'. The petitioners have produced in Court the original classifications as approved by Assistant Collector under Rule 173-B framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The assessed under Rule 173-B has to file list of goods for approval of the proper officer in such form as the Collector may direct. He has to show item num...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ99
J.D. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against order dated 7th June 1984 of an Additional Sessions Judge declining permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution of the petitioners. (2) The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that S/Shri Surinder Singh, Raghbir Singh, Balbir Singh and Mohinder Singh, who are real brothers, are running a guest house called 'Dashmesh Guest House' at Chowk Sang Tarashan, Delhi. Hari Parshad-petitioner No. 4, his sons 0m Parkash-Petitioner No. 1 and Satish Kumar-petitioner No. 3 have a shop near by the said Guest House where they sell milk, curd and fruit juices etc. On 19th June 1980, Surinder Singh lodged a report (FIR No. 877/80 under Section 307/324/34 IPC) against all the four petitioners with Paharganj police to the effect that seven or eight days prior to that date Hari Parshad etc-. were having a Jagran (i.e. recitation of devotional songs etc. night to propitiate the Goddess) at Chowk Sang Tara...
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Singh Vs. Sewa Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ62
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, dated 31-1-1983 whereby he dismissed the petition of the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) on the ground that the petitioner has not proved his ownership of the house in question, namely, A-467, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The Additional Rent Controller had held that the petitioner bad proved that the premises were let out for residential purpose only and that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and the premises were bona fide required by him for his residential purposes for himself and for his family. (2) The petitioner had filed a suit for possession and damages against the present respondent being suit No. 666 of 1970 in the Court of Shri Gulab Tulsiyani, Sub-Judge, Delhi. In the said suit the respondent had challenged the ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner's claim was that his wife Snt. Pritam Kaur had purchased this suit property from the Rehabilitation Depar...
Tag this Judgment!