Delhi Court August 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 75 results (0.024 seconds)Ramesh Kumar and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT34; 1985(9)DRJ245
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Krishan Kumar alias Kuddi, Raj Kumar alias Puppi and Ramesh Kumar were tried in the court of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Addl. Sessions Judge on the charges under sections 302 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge found all the accused guilty of the offences charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life on the first charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2) Against their convictions and sentences the accused have come in appeal. (3) The case for the prosecution is this. There is a dramatic club by the name 'Naresh Dramatic Club' in Harijan colony, Tilak Nagar. Public Witness 4 Jagdish Kumar was the director of the said club. The club used to play Ram Lila every year during the Dussehra. The appellants during the staging of Ram Lila in the year 1979 had created trouble. (4) On 25th September 1980 at about 7.30 p.m. Public Witness 4 Jagdish Kumar, Public Witness 6 Inder Jit, Public Witness 9 Sur...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2428Tri(Delhi)
1. The Department has filed this reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Shri Rakesh Bhatia, SDR appeared for the applicant Collector and none for the respondents.2. The respondents filed a revision application against the order of the Appellate Collector dated 19-5-1980 which was treated as an appeal.The brief facts were that the Superintendent of Central Excise, Cochin, issued a show cause notice to the respondents herein on 31-1-1979 demanding differential duty amounting to Rs. 5,265.07 for the period 1972-73 to 1975-76 under Rule 10A. The respondents stated that the demand was barred by limitation. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector confirmed the demand. Against the Appellate order a revision was filed and was treated as an appeal. This Bench, following the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 331 (Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors.), held that the dema...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Peico Electronics and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune (the appellant) against Order-in-appeal No. B-1626/PN-142/82, dated the 8th October, 1982, passed by the Appellant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd., Pune (the respondent) against the Assistant Collector's decision classifying certain plastic parts such as Radio cabinets, knobs etc. manufactured by the respondent under Item 15A (2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Excise Tariff) and demanding duty of Rs. 4, 12,761.30 on the goods for the period from 28-2-1982 to 19-4-1982. The Appellate Collector held that the goods fell under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff and allowed the appeal.2. The dispute arising for determination by us is whether articles of plastics such as radio cabinets, knobs etc. fell for classification under Item 15A (2) as held by the Assistant Collector or under Item 68 as held ...
Tag this Judgment!Fred Hausmann Ag Vs. Bio-solar P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas714(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a petition under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of the first respondent company. The case of the petitioner (a Swiss company) as set out in the petition is very short and it is this : The respondent company placed with the petitioner an order dated June 9, 1980 (amended on September 29, 1980), for the supply of certain machinery for a price of 85,270 Swiss Frances. The machinery was supplied but the respondent paid only 76,236 Swiss France and has defaulted in payment of the payment of the balance of 9,034 Francs (Rs. 59,570.63) with interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum despite repeated demands including a formal notice of demand under section 434 dated January 2, 1984. The respondent company, thereforee, it is prayed, should be wound up. 2. Counsel for the respondent company opposes the admission of the petition on three grounds : (1) The claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation as on date and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Redihot Electricals, Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(23)ELT421(Del)
1. Though only CM No. 1741 of 1981 was listed today for vacation of the stay order dated 28th August, 1980 passed in CM No. 1295 of 1980 but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition itself is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner M/s. Redihot Electricals had challenged an order dated 13th October, 1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) and an order dated 31st July, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector Central Excise (Annexure 'C' to the writ petition). 3. The petitioners M/s. Redihot Electricals are manufacturers of domestic electrical appliances. These electrical appliances are chargeable to excise duty under Tariff item No. 33 C. ad valorem excise duty is chargeable with reference to the value of the appliances and the value of the appliances is required to be determined under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 4. The petitioners had filed th...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Devi and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT38; 1985(9)DRJ270; 1985RLR544
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th November, 1981 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) Briefly these are the facts. Smt. Munni Devi, petitioner No. 1 is the widow Budh Parkash and Narsi petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the sons, Veena and Guddo, petitioners No. 4 and 5 are the daughters of the deceased Prabhu Dayal Koli. Prabhu Dayal Koli had filed a suit on 6th June, 1980 for a decree of mandatory injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi directing it to grant license /tehbazari in his favor for parking his water-trolleys at the sites mentioned in Annexure 'A' attached with the plaint for sale of cold water from the water cooling plant on payment of prescribed tehbazari fees/charges. He had also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation, its officials etc. from removing/liftin...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Administration Vs. Puran Lal Ahuja
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT392
Rajinder Sachar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent accused. The prosecution case was that on February 22, 1969 the shop of M/s Light and Sound Corner at Stall No. 10, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi was inspected and certain, drugs were recovered. On disclosure by the respondent P.L. Ahuja, that he had kept certain goods at Godown No. 4981, he was taken there and on his pointing out the godown it was opened with a key he produced. On search of the godown a number of drugs along with other articles like implements, labels and packing materials were found there and nine samples out of the drugs namely, Chloramphenicol capsules, Acistrap capsules Tetracycline capsules. Injections Pethidine Hydrochloride I.P., Neurobion Merck ampoules. Injections Morphia, Sulphadiazine tablets and Bismuth Carbonate (which are well known names of medicines) were taken. The said samples were sent for analysis. The report was that the samples were declared...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Nath Verma Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1800; 1985(9)DRJ249
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) Three petitions (Crl. Writ No. 93/84, Crl. Misc. 775/ 85 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 853/85) are being decided by this order. (2) All the three petitions were filed by the same petitioner, namely, Vishwa Nath Verma. The petitioner was in Government service and was member of Indian Foreign Service (B). He committed murder of his wife and, thereforee, 'was arrested on 25th December 1976. On 4th August 1979 he Was convicted in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed. (3) The petitioner applied to Delhi Administration for grant of furlough or parole in accordance with the rules framed by the said Administration. Delhi Administration obtained the report of the police which was to the effect that the petitioner was a dangerous and desperate character having killed his wife and that he should not be granted either furlough or parole. On accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Jam Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT474; 1985(9)DRJ232; 1985RLR603
J.D. Jain, J. (1) This is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings in a company case pending in the court of an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, under Section 229(4) read with Sections 299(1) & 299(2) of .the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') initiated on the complaint of the respondent-Registrar of Companies, Delhi & Haryana. (2) The facts leading to this petition succinctly are that the petitioner- Vinod Kumar Jain was Managing Director of M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') at the relevant time. On 29th August 1980 the Board of Directors of the Company passed a resolution in which a draft of the lease agreement regarding lease of 50% share of the 7th Floor of a building called 'ARCADIA' situated at Nariman Point, Bombay, between the petitioner and his wife Smt. Anju Jain as Lessers and the Company as lessee was approved. Pursua...
Tag this Judgment!Kores (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT627TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P 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 only issue arising for determination in the present proceedings is the proper classification, under the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as GET), of carbon paper manufactured by the appellants.3. M/s. Kores (India) Ltd., the appellants, purchase duty-paid paper from the market. This paper is coated with a solution of carbon black or lamp black in a greasy/oily medium on a coating machine on one side or both sides, as required, by means of a coating roller and an equalising rod and then passing it through chilled rollers.4. After holding adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector, Thane, Division I, by an order dated 18-9-80, held that the carbon paper...
Tag this Judgment!