Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 11 of about 108 results (0.020 seconds)Divi Das Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ134; 28(1985)DLT197
H.C. Goel, J.(1) The petitioner Devi Dass was detained by an order dated June 30, 1984 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short COFEPOSA). Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on January 14, 1985. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention dated June 30, 1984 on January 18, 1985 along with documents as per the two lists of documents, Annexures B and C to the writ petition. The order of detention states that me Administrator of he Union Territory of Delhi is satisfied-with regard to the petitioner Devi Dass that with a view to. preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods, namely, wrist watches, it is necessary to make the following order 'Now, thereforee, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(i) and (a) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activitie...
Tag this Judgment!Aroma Apparels Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT90TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government against the order of the Board dated 12-3-1980. On transfer it is being treated as an appeal.3. The appellants are a small ready-made garments manufacturing unit having their factory and office in Room No.418, Hind Rajasthan Building, Bombay. Between 12 to 16th June, the Central Excise officers of Inspection Group, Bombay, visited the premises of M/s. Intima Wear, Room No.422, Hind Rajasthan Building, Bombay. The said inspection group found 30 pcs of ready-made garments of registered brand name, namely 'AROMA'. It is also alleged that they found some incriminating entries in the private accounts. The Department's case is that the appellants (M/s. Aroma Apparels and M/s. Intima Wear, though apparently two different legal entities, in actual practice, it was not so. The Department rely on certain circumstances and also entries in the accounts in support of their contention. According to them, this method was adopted with a vi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC921Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, as seen from the review show cause notice F.No. 158/6/77-81-CX-II, dated 11-9-1981 (to which we shall advert later) are that- "The assessee filed three refund claims amounting to Rs. 11,900.71 (Rs. 3,896.62, Rs. 2,022.91 and Rs. 5,981.18) to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Division, Calcutta for refund of duty paid by them on diesel oil/furnace oil supplied in bunker to foreign going vessels on the grounds that the Govt. of India vide Notification No. 349/77, dated 16-12-77 did not envisage any payment of duty on such supplies. The Asstt. Collector of the Division vide his orders : (1) 1/Refund/9/7 8, dated 7-9-78 ; (2) l/Refund/10/78, dated 7-9-78 and...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Sehgal and Others Vs. Chhote Ram and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1985)ACC264; AIR1985Delhi398; [1987]61CompCas500(Delhi); 1985(9)DRJ82; 1985RLR498
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated September 5, 1979, where by the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,09,718 with costs of the proceedings to the claimants. The tribunal also directed that the liability of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5, was limited to Rs. 50,000. An award for the balance amount has been passed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The insurance has deposited the said amount of Rs. 50,000 and the claimants are paid that amount. This appeal was listed for hearing on January 23, 1985. Neither the respondents nor counsel were present. The appeal was allowed by me on that date with enhanced compensation and interest. Subsequently, applications were moved on behalf of the DTC, respondent No. 4 and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5, explaining their absence on the date of hearing and further praying for the rehearing of the appeal. I was satisfied with the E...
Tag this Judgment!Meera Bai Vs. Rajinder Kumar Sobti
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi136; 1986(10)DRJ55
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This appeal is filed by the wife against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 31/5/1984 whereby the learned Judge granted divorce to respondent husband under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage took place on 22/11/1973. There are two issues of the marriage, one son and one daughter. The children are with the wife. On 25/7/1976 it is alleged that she was turned out of the house by the husband. She filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act on 22/12/1976. When this petition was pending she filed a criminal complaint under section 494, Ipc alleging that the husband had contracted a second marriage on 8/12/1976. In the said criminal case the evidence of the wife and one witness was recorded on 30/4/1977. The criminal case under section 494, Ipc is still pending. A decree for restitution was passed in favor of the wife on 24/12/1977. That decree was allowed to be passed ex parte...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Gursharan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1668
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Murder Reference No. 1 of 1985 (State v. Gursharan Singh etc.), Criminal Appeal No, 3 of 1985 (Prabhat Kumar v. State) and Criminal Appeal No, 5 of 1985 (Gursharan Singh v. State) as all these three matters arise out of the same incident, facts and circumstances.2. Mr. S. M. Aggarwal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi, found two persons, Gursharan Singh alias Baboo and Parbhat Kumar guilty under Section 302/34, Section 307/34 and Section 392/34 IPC and sentenced them to death under Section 302/34 and to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively under Section 307/34 and Section 392/34. Since he had awarded death sentence the same was submitted to this Court for confirmation. The convicts have also preferred separate appeals registered as Cr.A.3/85 (Parbhat Kumar v. State) and Cr.A.5/85 (Gursharan Singh v. State).3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and we have caref...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. East Coast Paper Products (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC450Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, dated 30-8-1984. This appeal has been filed in the office of the Tribunal on 8-4-1985. An application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed. Shri Chatterjee, JDR, submitted that the delay was due to administrative reasons and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay. Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate, for the respondent, opposed the application for condonation.2. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions. For a proper understanding of the question at issue certain dates have to be set out. The Order-in-Appeal is dated 30-8-1984. It was issued on 28-9-1984. It was received by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Collectorate on 8-10-1984. As the matter related to Calcutta-II Collectorate it was sent to the applicant who received the same on 11-10-1984. The Applicant Collector called for the relevant rec...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Official Liquidator, Prashant Engineering Co. P. Lt ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi256; [1986]59CompCas301(Delhi)
H.L. Anand, J. 1. By this application under rule 9 of the Companies (Court ) rules, 1959, Syndicate Bank, who claims to be a secured creditor of Prashant Engineering Co.(P). Ltd., in liquidation, and has secured a simple money decree for Rs. 2,11,897.20 together with costs and future interest against the company, prays that the official liquidator be directed to pay to the bank sale proceeds of Rs. 85,500 in respect of a diesel generating set toward part satisfaction of the decree and to hand over the other hypothecated machines belonging to the company that may be held by the official liquidator to the bank of the allegation that all the machines installed in the factory of the company, including the generating set aforesaid, were hypothecated by the company in favor of the bank as security for the money advanced by the bank to the company, which formed the subject-matter of the suit and the decree. It is claimed that the aforesaid generating set was disposed of by the official liquid...
Tag this Judgment!