Delhi Court May 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 108 results (0.022 seconds)S.P. Malik Vs. Parpati Bai Haryanvi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT181
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition for revision against the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 24th September, 1982 filed by Shri S.P. Malik, petitioner landlord. (2) By the impugned order, the learned Additional Rent Controller had dismissed an eviction application which had been filed by the petitioner on the grounds contained in clause (e) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). (3) The petitioner, Shri S P. Malik was working as Technical Adviser to Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd., and retired in the year 1971 as the Technical Adviser. Thereafter, he worked with Super Bazar, Delhi. The landlord has three sons, namely, Subhash Chander, Yogesh Chander and Mahesh Chander. Yogesh Chander was married in the year 1970. There is one child from that wedlock. That marriage went into difficulties and ultimately there was a separation between him and his wife and he was marriag...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Rastogi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi128
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge certain decisions made by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. Director General of Army Welfare Housing Organisation and Adjutant General, Army Headquarters who is the Chairman of Army Welfare Housing Organisation. Chief of the Army Staff and Union of India have also been imp leaded as respondents. The allegations are that they have violated the provisions of the Memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the organization as well as bye-laws contained in the Master Brochure, 1979.(2) A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. K.S. Bindra, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of the writ petitions. The respondents contend that Army Welfare Housing Organisation (for short WHO) is a welfare organisation registered under the Societies Act, Xxi of 1860 having its head office at Kashmir House, Army Headquarters, New Delhi. who being a voluntary organisation...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC223Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeals involve common issues of fact and law and are, therefore, disposed of by this common Order.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Kanoria Chemical Industries (P) Ltd., Renukoot (the Respondents in the present proceedings) submitted to the Central Excise authorities 13 claims for refund of the duty paid by them during the period from 25-5-1971 to 31-8-1977 on wet chlorine converted into hydrochloric acid. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur passed 13 orders rejecting the 13 claims on the ground that they were hit by the limitation laid down in Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereafter called 'the Rules') since they were not submitted within 6 months of the payment of duty. The Respondents pursued the matter in appeal. The Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Delhi allowed all the 13 appeals by his Order No. 14 to 27/CE/Alld/87 dated 17-3-1982. The relevant portion of the Order reads thus : "I have gone through the app...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Vermani Etc. Vs. Balak Ram Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC172
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi. Jagan Nath Vermani was killed in an accident caused by Car No. MYB-7096 belonging to Respondent No. 2 on the Mathura Road on 10-5-1968. The deceased was going on his motor-cycle No. DLW-3756 from Delhi Gate towards Lajpat Nagar. The car in question came from opposite direction in great speed, came on the wrong side of the road and hit the motor-cycle. As a result of the impact the left side clutch liver was broken; the seat carrier and the looking glass were damaged; the shocker and the front mudguard were damaged Dr. S.S. Kaushal, PW-6 who conducted the post-mortem stated that there was effusion of blood in the frontal and parietal region. The frontal, both temporal and the occipital, bones were fractured and that the fissured fracture extended to the base of the skull. 2nd to 7th ribs on the left side were fractured and the left lung was also bruised. Jagan ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Kumar Goyal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC454Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by Shri Satish Kumar Goyal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, No. S/49-210/83R dated nil.2. Shri N.C. Sogani, Consultant, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S.C. Rohatgi, JDR, on behalf of the respondent.3. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant imported fully automatic and computerised equipment for developing of colour films, printing, enlarging and processing of colour photo prints. This was done on behalf of a partnership concern, duly registered with the Directorate of Industry as a small-scale industry for processing and printing of colour films, photo-copying, instant photography and making of commercial and non-commercial movies and video recording. The appellant was granted an import Licence by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, which, on the recommendation of the Director of Industry, New Delhi, was duly endorsed for being treated as Project Import. Thereafter, as required under th...
Tag this Judgment!Modi Gas and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC366Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an Application for Stay of the operation of the Order-in-Original No. 10/Collr/1984, dated 23-5-1984 and dispensing with the pre-deposit and penalty imposed under the said Order upon the Applicant in terras of S. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the Act).2. The question that arose for consideration by the Collector in the aforesaid Order was as to whether the value of the packing supplied by the buyer of the product manufactured by the Applicant (in this case, cylinders for nitrogen and hydrogen gas) is to be included in the computation of the assessable value in terms of S. 4 of the Act in its amended form. The Collector had apparently held that it has to be included and for the periods between January 1981 and 23-4-1982 in respect of nitrogen gas and January 1981 and 17-3-1982 in respect of hydrogen gas, assessed the differential duty in a sum of Rs. 4,89,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000.3. It was submitted before us by Shri Ravinder Nara...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Chand Madhav Das Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi29; 1985(9)DRJ317
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 8th April, 1976 passed in Sao No. 30/1973 setting aside the order of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 28th August 1972 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi had held that the suit filed by the appellant was maintainable and had directed the learned trial court to decide the suit for damages filed against the respondents on merits, (2) The learned trial court by Judgment and decree dated 1st February, 1972 while deciding issue No. 5 in the suit fried by the appellant, M/s. Lal Chand Madhav Dass for damages had held that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue the railway. The suit itself had been filed by the plaintiff for compensation for damages to the goods due to late delivery. (3) The lower appellate court vide its Judgment dated 28th August, 1972 in paragraph 7 thereof had held that the plaintiff was not a mere consignee but was a consig...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. Rajinder Thakur and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ33
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Smt. Daropadi Devi was the owner of the property No. 105-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The land on which it was constructed was purchased by her by a sale deed dated January 8, 1948, Ex. A-1/1. On her death this property devolved on the appellants Ram Kumar her husband, and Sarwan Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Ashok Kumar, her sons, A portion on the first floor of the said property consisting of three rooms etc. shown as red in the plan Ex.A-2. was let out to Rajinder Thakur, respondent No. 1, in September, 1958. The monthly rent is Rs. 61.00 per month. (2) On September 2, 1972 the appellants brought an application for recovery of possession of the said premises under clauses (b) and (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act'). An order for eviction was made by the Additional Controller on January 23, 1976 on both the grounds, in appeal the Tribunal by order dated September 13, 1977, however, reversed the findings and dism...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Textile Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT562TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally a Revision Application to Government of India, is the legality or correctness of demands of differential duty for Rs. 13,985.01 and Rs. 19,756.62 confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, by his order dated 2nd July, 1977 and upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, by his order dated 17-3-78.2. The demands against the appellant relate to the period 1-3-75 to 29-4-75. It appears that after Tariff Item 68 of the C.E.T. came into force, the appellants filed a classsification list in respect of the work of engraving on Copper Rolls of various sizes and designs done by them, classifying the goods under Tariff Item No. 68. It also appears that the appellants paid duty on the value of job work done by them. At the time of finalisation of the RT 12 Returns the Superintendent of Central Excise, inter alia, told the appellants that they had paid duty only in respect of job charges of eng...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Roller Flour Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT881TriDel
1. This is a matter in which Revision Application was filed by the appellants against Order-in-Appeal No. V(IF) 2-2/76 dated 15-9-1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. This has since been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an Appeal before us.2. Shri N. Safaya, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.D. Tayal, S.D.R., on behalf of the respondents.3. It is submitted by Shri Safaya, learned Advocate that the appellants were manufacturers of Maida. On the midnight of 28th May, 1971, Excise Duty was levied on Maida. A Bill to this effect was presented in Parliament on that date. However, under Government of India's Notification No. GSR/941 issued on 10th June, 1971, Maida was exempted from payment of duty. The appellants had been paying Excise Duty on Maida from 1-6-1971 to 9-6-1971 according to Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. The case of the appellants has been that in view of the fact that the payment of duty from ...
Tag this Judgment!