Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 108 results (0.021 seconds)Escorts Ltd. (Fed) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT214TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, dated 8-6-1983, by which he confirmed the orders of the Assistant Collector, Faridabad, which demanded Central Excise Duty of Rs. 24,500/- from the appellants.2. The appellants, manufacturer of tractors, recovered over and above the price declared in the price-list an amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- on account of publicity and propaganda charges during the period 1-1-1979 to 31-12-1979 from their authorised dealers. The Assistant Collector held that these charges should not be excluded from the assessable value and demanded duty. One of the contentions of the appellants before the Assistant Collector was that the demand was time-barred. The Assistant Collector, however, was of the view that the failure of the appellants to inform the department about the collection of these amounts amounted to suppression of material fact. Therefore, the Assistant Collector held that the period of limitation would be five years ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Singh Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1985Delhi388
Sachar, J. 1. This petition challenges the notification issued by the High Court under S. 9(6) of the Cr.P.C. 1973. The notification reads as under :- 'In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 9(6) of the Cr.P.C. 1973, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court have been pleased to order that Shri Mahesh Chander, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, shall hold his Court for the trial of the Sessions case relating to FIR No. RC-2/80 SPE/CBI/C-IV, State v. Ranjit Singh & others according to law, in Central Jail, Tihar'. 2. There is a criminal trial going on in which this petition is moved by one of the co-accused Ranjit Singh in which he has been arrested by the CBI on 24th November 1983 and the case is relating to the murder of Nirankari Baba and his aide. The notification has directed that the Additional Sessions Judge shall hold his Court for the trial of this case in the Central Jail, Tihar. 3. Mr. Bawa Gurcharan Singh who appears for the petitioner submits in the first...
Tag this Judgment!Richardson-vicks Incorporation and anr. Vs. Medico Laboratories
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR6(Delhi); 1985(1)Crimes1122; 28(1985)DLT166
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The plaintiff No. I is a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America and inter alias carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. Plaintiff No. 2 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carrying on the business as manufacturers of bulk drugs, pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The defendant firm is also dealing in the same line. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from manufacturing and sale of any pharmaceutical or other preparations of strips bearing the design, layout, colour scheme and get up hereto or any other strip or the words 'POWER 555' so as to infringe the plaintiff No. 1's registered trade mark No. 316130 in respect of the label mark containing the words 'VICKS Action 500'. (2) As per the ferments plaintiff N...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Gidwaney Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi404
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioner Kishore Gidwaney has put up this petition under Section 278 read with Section 272 Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed in regard to the Will dated 30th May, 1980 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Puran Devi widow of Dr. Gurbakash Singh Nayar whereby she is alleged to have bequeathed her perpetual sub-leasehold rights in plot No. 205 measuring 487.7 sq. yards in Block 'A' and situated in the lay out plan of New Friends Cooperative Horse Building Society Limited. New Delhi, which she had obtained from the aforesaid House Building Society vide a registered document dated 14th August, 1974. The testatrix Smt. Puran Devi died on 6th August, 1980 and at the time of her demise she left behind five near relations listed in para No. 5 of the petition and they are her husband Dr. Gurbakash' Singh Nayar and her children. Annexure 'A' of the petition gives the valuation of the property left...
Tag this Judgment!Jai NaraIn Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi272
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner, Shri Jai Narain joined Delhi Police as Constable on February 21, 1955. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable on March 19, 1962. He was reverted with effect from June 5, 1971. His name was removed from the promotion list from the same date. While functioning as Head Constable a charge for gross misconduct and contravention of the Conduct Rules was framed against him. After due inquiry that charge was found to have been proved. The disciplinary authority after agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer directed forfeiture .of one year's approved service which entailed in reduction, of the petitioner's pay from Rs. 128 to Rs. 115. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the forfeiture of the approved service, reversion from the post of Head Constable to' the substantive. rank of .Constable and removal of his name from the promotion list 'C' with effect from June 5, 1971. (2) At the outsat I may notice that the petitioner sought...
Tag this Judgment!Joginder Singh Vs. Uma Vati
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT137
G.C. Jain, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') by the tenant is directed against the order of the Addl. Rent Controller dated August 19, 1983. (2) The dispute is in respect of a flat in property bearing municipal No. 21, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi. It was let out to the tenant by the previous owners Kishori Lal and Rajinder Prasad prior to its purchase by the present landlady on February 20, 1959. The agreed rent is Rs. 51.00 per month. (3) The landlady sought the eviction of the tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It was resisted by the tenant. (4) Learned Addl. Controller found that the landlady was the owner of the property and it had been let out for residential purposes. He further held that the landlady was in possession of a similar flat in this very property consisting of one room on first floor and a barsati on the second floor. She admittedly required acco...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Sharma Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT171
ORDER Whereas an order F. No. 673.00 85-Cus. Viii dated 14-1-1985, has been passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, for the detention of Shri. Ravi Sharma ; whereas a declaration u/s 9(1) -ibid has been made against him by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India ; And whereas the case of Shri Ravi Sharma was placed before the Advisory Board who are of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for his detention; Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(f) read with Section 9(2) of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government hereby confirms the aforesaid detention order and further directs that u/s 10 of the said Act, the said Shri Ravi Sharma be detained for a period of two years from the date of his detention, i.e., from 14-1-1985'.(8) The argument is that the Additional Secretary to the Government of India was either not informed by the detai...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Motors Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1807Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal, orginally a Revision Application to Government of India, is the value of clearances of the appellants for determining their eligibility of exemption from duty under Notification No. 158/71, dated 26-7-1971.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras II Division, by his Order-in-Original dated 25-4-1977 included in the clearances the value of the outer spring eye of Rs. 33,637.88 and the value of bolts, nuts and screws of Rs. 58,347.57 manufactured by other manufacturers from out of raw material supplied by the appellants. In appeal the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise by order dated 15-10-1979 held that value of pin outer spring eye should be excluded, but he upheld the Assistant Collector's order regarding value of bolts, nuts and screws being included in the clearances. Appellants then filed Revision to Government of India which is the present appeal.3. In the grounds of appeal and before us it is urged that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Association of State Road Transport Undertakings Vs. Association of St ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ77Del
ORDER1. The present application is for issue of an ad interim injunction during the pendency of Suit No. 555 of 1985.2. The plaintiff is an Association of State Road Transport Undertaking. It is registered under the Societies Registration Act. Its registered office is at 811, Ashoka Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Shri P. V. Venkatakrishnan, IAS, is the Executive Director of the plaintiff while its President is Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping & Transport, New Delhi.3. Defendant 1 is a union of workers of the plaintiff. Plaintiff says that it has not recognised the said defendant as a Union because the same had failed to fulfill the requisite conditions for recognition as representative union. Defendant 2 is another Union of employees. Defendants 3 to 5 are the office bearers of defendant 2. Defendants 6 and 7 were the former employees of the plaintiff and their services were terminated. Defendants 8 to 10 are the employees of the plaintiff and they ar...
Tag this Judgment!Gedore Tools (India) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)18ITD404(Delhi)
1. The appellant-assessee filed this second appeal on 15-2-1982 against the order dated 2-1-1982 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the memorandum as many as four effective grounds were taken, which we are reproducing below, the fifth is stated to be general ground which craves leave to add to, alter, vary or amend grounds of appeal: 1. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the appellant's production Unit-Ill at Rs. 19,11,831 instead of at Rs. 16,02,611 only. 1.1 It is further submitted that the assessee's claim under Section 80J was based on a correct application of the provisions of the Act, as evidenced by various High Courts, which have ruled that for the purpose of Section 80J 'capital employed' should not be confused with 'capital used'. To that extent, Rule 19A(2)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which talks of written down value of the fixed assets, does not bri...
Tag this Judgment!