Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 62 results (0.027 seconds)G.K. Chugani Vs. Dhanwanti
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT265; 1986(11)DRJ125
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') are that the petitioner-GK. Chugani is son-in-law of one Shri D.M. Waswani. The respondent-Smt. Dhanwanti claims to be the legally wedded wife of Shri Waiwani. On 8th June 1982, the petitioner instituted a complaint against the respondent under Section 506(2)(2) read with Section 507, Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). It was contended that the respondent had been sending threatening calls on telephone and instigating her associates to make such threatening calls to him and members of his family for about a year. The motive for this was alleged to be the pendency of good deal of litigation between the family of the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent- Smt. Dhanwanti and her associates on the other. It wai pointed out that Smt. Kamla Chugani, wife of the petitioner and Maj. Baldev Chaman, son-in-law of the petitioner were cited as witnesses in s...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Plantations and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC510Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the appeals are by M/s. Kothari Plantations and Industries Limited, Calcutta, the two appeals relating to different Tea Estates owned by them. Since identical issue arises for determination in both appeals they were, with the consent of the parties, heard together.2. With reference to the clearances from the two Tea Estates (Dooria Tea Estate and Gorunga Tea Estate) the appellants claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 161/75-C.E., dated 1-7-1975, as amended by Notification No. 133/76-C.E., dated 26-3-1976.The applications for determination of the eligibility for the concessional rates, in terms of the provisions of the notification, had been made on 21-10-1976 and 5-11-1976 respectively and orders of the Assistant Collector concerned in this regard were passed on 6-4-1977 and 19-3-1982 respectively. Thereafter applications for refund were made on 21-4-1977 and 20-5-1982 respectively. Both applications were rejected by the respective Assistant Coll...
Tag this Judgment!Stamac Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC370Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Stamac Products, Calcutta (hereinafter called the appellants) manufacture medicines and held Licence No. L-4/21/Med/ 65(v).One of the products manufactured by them is known in the trade as Marylon Medicated Shampoo' and the appellants also describe it as such.2. They filed a classification list classifying this product (Marylon Medicated Shampoo) 100 ml under Tariff Item 14E (as patent or proprietary medicine) Along with this classification list, the appellants also produced a carton indicating in printing that the product is 'Marylon Medicated Shampoo' and it cleans, disinfects hair and controls dandruff. The ingredients of this product namely, Benzalkonium Chloride, Cetrimide, Undecenoic Acid, D-Panthenol in a non-ionic base have also been mentioned on this carton. A sample of product was drawn vide Test Memo No. 2, dated 12-12-78 and the Chemical Examiner in his report dated 1-1-79 opined as under : "The sample is in the form of pale yellow coloured viscous liquid with agre...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Madan Lal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ203
Rajinder Sachar, J. (1) These are three appeals which will be disposed of by the same judgment. The firm Chela Ram Madan Lal and the two respondents Madan Lal and his Father Chela Ram were sent up for trial under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for storing for sale Haldi powder, chilly powder and Amchur powder at their godown No. 150/151, Gali Wai Wali, Masjid Teber Khan, Delhi. (2) Prosecution story was that some time in July 1970 Khem Singh Dsp, Cbi had gone to the godown No. 150-151 and as the doors of premises 151 Were broken he got removed the goods to the other premises and locked the same. On 18.2.71 Food Inspector M M. Kathpalia and others went Along with the Dsp to the premises 150-151. They found Madan Lal respondent present there and when the Food Inspectors etc. asked for samples from Madan Lal, he refused to give. A notice was given to him and goods were seized and produced in the court of a Magistrate who ordered that samples be t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan P. Sajnani Vs. Ranbir Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT45
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dated 16-2-1983 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord and directed eviction of the appellant under Sub-clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control, Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction against the appellant with respect to the property in dispute. The grounds of eviction taken up, were under Clause (b) and (J) and (k) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Out of these guards the respondent had conceded before the Additional Rent Controller regarding the grounds of eviction under Clauses (j) and (k). The only ground pressed was under Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section, (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It was pleaded in paragraph 18A of the petition:'That the respondent has sublet assigned and has parted with possession...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Gupta and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ260; 1986LabIC1817; (1987)ILLJ377Del
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) The question with which we are concerned in this appeal is the seniority of various Assistant Engineers who were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. There were two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition which was eventually rejected by the learned single Judge The first contention was that the appellants were entitled to get seniority on the basis of the service rendered as Assistant Engineer even prior to their joining the Corporation, it appears that all the petitioners had worked as Assistant Engineers in different Government or other departments such as Hindustan Chemical and Fertilisers Aera, Municipal Committee, U.P. Irrigation Department and so on. According to the petitioners, as they were Assistant Engineers even before they joined the Corporation, they had to get the advantage of that period of service. The second point raised by the petitioners was that they had rendered service on an ad hoc basis prior to their regular...
Tag this Judgment!Esha Ghoshal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC155
S.B. Wad, J.1. FAO 201/73 is filed by the claimant Ms. Esha Ghoshal for claiming Rs. 25,000/- as the compensation. The Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 11,881.50. FAO 226/73 is a cross-appeal by the Union of India, disclaiming the liability.2. Claimant Esha Ghoshal was traveling in a three-wheeler scooter No. DLR 4471 on 7-9-66. The Government truck No. DLG 7604 was transporting telephone posts from the store at Vinay Nagar to the SDO's godown near Connaught Place Exchange. The accident took place when the truck reached the crossing of Mehrauli Road and Lodhi Road, in front of the Safdarjung Tomb. According to the claimant the truck in question was being rashly and did not slow down at the crossing and hit against the three wheeler. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents was that the three-wheeler scooter came from the Lodhi Road side suddenly and hit against the truck, in spite of the fact that the truck swerved to the left to avoid the accident. The claimant has examined S...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Sharda Vasudev and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC357
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This judgment will dispose of F. A.O. No. 109 of 1980 as also F.A.O. No. 252 of 1980 as both these appeals are directed against the award dated 11th February 1980 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. F.A.O. No. 109 of 1980 has been filed by the Delhi Transport Corporation and the Driver of the bus against the award while the other appeal has been filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation.2. It was alleged by the claimants in their petition Under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act that on 18th April 1977 at about 10.25 p.m. the deceased was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DLM-9374 from his office towards his residence at a slow pace and was crossing marine crossing from Connaught Place side and was going towards Panchkuan Road when it was green signal for him, He had crossed 3/4th of the crossing when bus No. DLP-222 driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by appellant No. 2 in due course of bids employment when appellant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT582TriDel
1. On the matter being called, Shri K. Narayanan, the learned Advocate for the appellants, submits that this case is squarely covered by ratio of the decision of Order No. 90/85-D, dated 18-1-1985 in Appeal No.E/639/80-D in the case of R. Subbiah. The basic facts in this case are that there was a shortage of 8460 kgs. of tobacco from the warehouse.The shortage and substitution was noticed on 18-2-1976. The lower authorities had held that there had been unauthorised removal of tobacco as well as substitution. As a result duty has been demanded on 8460 kgs. of tobacco which had been removed and illicitly disposed of by the appellant. A penalty of Rs. 750/- has been imposed on the appellant in this regard. A quantity of 7829.5 kgs. substituted for the tobacco illicitly removed, has been confiscated subject to fine of Rs. 500/- in lieu of confiscation and also a direction that this should be accounted for.2. Shri Narayanan stated that the fine of Rs. 500/- on the substituted tobacco has a...
Tag this Judgment!Bermalt (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon Vs. Government of India and O ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC268; 1986(23)ELT411(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner challenge an order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Rohtak passed on November 7, 1980 consequent to the issue of a Tariff Advice by the Government of India bearing No. 23/79 of July 9, 1979. The petitioners also challenge the said Tariff Advice. By virtue of the ruling given in the said Tariff Advice certain exemptions/concessions in payment of excise duty cannot be claimed by the petitioners. According to the impugned Tariff Advice 'Barley Malt' and 'Malt Extract' cannot be classified as 'Food Products' or 'Food Preparations' for the purpose of Notification No. 55/75-CE, dated March 1, 1975 (as amended). 2. The petitioners claim that they are engaged in the manufacture of 'Malt' and 'Malt Extracts I.P.'. These are manufactured by processes set out in paragraph 2(ii) of the petition, relevant portion of which reads as under :- 'Malt. - Barely is screened and stepped (soaked in water tank). Then it is transferred to Germination Box for ge...
Tag this Judgment!