Delhi Court August 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 75 results (0.021 seconds)State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ228; 1985RLR565
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) This appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent Pawan Kumar Garg, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by her judgment/order dated 22nd September 1979 and acquitting him of the charge under Section 489(0 Indian Penal Code Earlier, the respondent was charged under the aforesaid offence as be was found in possession of 16U.S Dollars of 100 denomination and one dollar of 30 denomination, all were found to be counterfeit. The accused was put on trial by C.B.I, (2) The facts allegedly are that on 23-11-77 an information was received that the respondent was trafficking in counterfeit US. Dollars and on that day the* respondent will be passing through Tolstoy Lane behind Scindia House, Connaught Place at about 3 P.M. with forged U.S. Dollars in possession. A raid was arranged under the auspices of Inspector N.P. Tiwari, Inspector P.R. Singh and Constable RA. Mishra. Public Witness s I and 2 Rameshwar Nath and UJjal Singh respectively w...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Padma Devi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR372]; (1995)IIILLJ501Del
Yogeshwar Dayal, J1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order of the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 10th December, 1980 and the order dated 6th July, 1982 passed by the Appellate Authority under the aforesaid Act.2. Smt Sushma Devi, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (hereinafter called the 'Corporation') died on 2nd July, 1980 and her daughter Km. Padma Devi, respondent No. 1 herein, filed an application for directions before the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for payment of gratuity due to her deceased mother under section 4 of the Act on account of her death on 2nd July, 1980. Before the Controlling Authority, as it appears from the order of the Controlling Authority, two points were taken in the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation. First point was that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 i...
Tag this Judgment!Kaipully Match Industries and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2076Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals were heard together as common questions of fact and law arise for determination in both the appeals. Show Cause Notices had been issued to both appellants following Finance Bill, 1982 under Clause 52 whereof the provisions thereunder shall be deemed to prevail and to have always prevailed over all notifications issued on or after 19-6-1980 but before 23-2-1982 and all duties of excise levied, assessed or collected or purporting to have been levied, assessed or collected on or after 19-6-1980 but before 23-2-1982 on matches shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed to have always been as validly levied, assessed or collected. Following the said Show Cause Notices adjudication was held and under Order dated 18-11-1982 (in the case of Kaipully Match Industries) and Order dated 17-11-1983 (in the case of Mayyanand Panchayat Co-operative Society Ltd.) the demands were confirmed for payment of differential duty as mentioned in the Show Cause Notices. The appeals against...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise and Vs. National Jute Manufactures
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2417Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant in the first three appeals mentioned above is the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The respondents in the said appeals are M/s. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd. They are the appellants in the other two appeals. For purposes of convenience they will be referred to as respondents in this order. In the appeals filed by the Collector they contended that the said appeals are not entertainable by this Tribunal. The proceedings arise under the Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976. Since the question of maintainability of appeals against the orders under the said rules was common to these five appeals as well as certain other appeals, notices were issued to the parties in the other appeals also to make missions, if deemed fit, in the present hearing. On the date fixed the Collector was represented by Shri Vineet Ohri, Senior Departmental Representative and the respondents, M/s. National Jute Manufactures Corporation Ltd. were represented by Shri R. Das, Senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Vegetable Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2382Tri(Delhi)
1. This was a Revision Application filed before the Central Government which, on transfer to this Tribunal, has been treated as an appeal.2. In this case, the appellants sold bakery products to M/s. Britannia Biscuit Co., in tin container (cans) and recovered the cost of cans in six instalments. The disputed question to be decided by us is whether the cans were returnable within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the cost of the same was includible in the assessable value of the bakery products. The contention of the appellants is that the cans were returnable and its cost was not to be included in the assessable value. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate, has cited (i) Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Sathe Biscuits and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 39 (Bombay) and (ii) decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Corn Products Company and Anr. v.Union of India and Anr. reported...
Tag this Judgment!H.K.S. Malik Vs. S.M. Gupta Construction Co.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ224
H.C. Goel, J. (1) Shri Sagar Mal Gupta proprietor M/s. S.M. Gupta Construction Company filed a complaint against Shri H.K.S. Malik and two others accused under Sections 406/420/34 Indian Penal Code It was alleged that Shri H.K.S.Malik, accused No. 1, the present petitioner, had represented to the complainant that the three accused persons were the joint owners of plot No. C-5.Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, and that it was a commercial plot. They proposed to build an air-conditioned commercial complex consisting of a basement,ground floor, first floor and a mezzanine floor. They had got a sanctioned plan for the same and they would complete construction on the plot within four months. On the said representation to the complainant an agreement in writing was entered into between the parties on 27/09/1982. The complainant undertook to book shops and offices for sale in the basement,the ground floor and the first floor of the building at the minimum rates as specified in the agreement. The furth...
Tag this Judgment!Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Indian Institute of Technology
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT524; 1985RLR529
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This Revision Petition is filed by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 17th September, 1982. That order was passed in the appeal filed by Dr. Swamy against the order of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dismissing the suit of Dr. Swamy. The suit was filed by Dr. Swamy against the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, for a declaration that the order of termination of his service passed on 11-12-1972 and the resolution of the Board of the Institute dated 4-12-1972 and void and illegal. He had further claimed for declaration that his status as a permanent Professor in Economics remained unaffected by the order of termination and that he remained in service of the Institute. (2) Dr. Swamy returned to India after working as an Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Harvard in August, 1969. The Director of the respondent-institute offered him the assignment as a Professor in Economics. The Selection Committee ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Virendra Singh Vs. Virendra Singh
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ288
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This revision was disposed of by me by an oral order on March 26, 1985, in absence of the counsel for the respondent. On an application moved by the respondent it was seen that the name of the counsel for the respondent was wrongly shown in the cause list. I, thereforee, reheard the civil revision, (2) The parties were married in November 1963. In September. 1980 the husband moved a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The wife moved an application for pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Act. Originally the proceedings were filed in Dehradun but with the order of the Supreme Court they were transferred to this Court. (3) The wife had claimed that husband's salary was Rs. 3,447.50. She alleged that he has income from the fixed deposit receipts of about Rs. 60,000.00 . She also alleged that the husband receives income by way of rent and from the agricultural produce. The husband has denied the quantum of the income as alleged by wife. He in his...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Woollen and Silk Mills Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2340Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s Lal Woollen and Silk Mills (Private) Limited are engaged in dyeing of Worsted Woollen Yarn falling under Tariff Item No.18-B, C.E.T. They have been receiving duty paid grey yarn, under permission granted under Rule 51A, and have been giving intimation in Form D 3 as and when such receipts took place. They had been paying differential duty on the dyed yarn at the time of clearance, taking set off of duty already paid on the grey yarn. They had been purporting to do so under notifications 235/76 and 236/76-Central Excise in that connection.2. Under notice dated 24-8-1977 the appellants were informed that no such set off was admissible as the same was not provided in the notifications abovesaid. It was pointed out that woollen yarn is notified in the Schedule to Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules for grant of proforma credit and not for set off of duty. Pointing out that no permission had been obtained from the Assistant Collector under Rule 56A, the appellants we...
Tag this Judgment!Baugur Rehman Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ23; 30(1986)DLT395
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of criminal writ No. 78 of 1985 as both these cases involve similar point. The petitioners in these two petitioners were detained by virtue of orders passed on 17th November, 1984 by Shri K.K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing them from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The petitioners were detained along with two other detenus namely Sumer Chand and Ravi Sharma. The orders of detention in respect of all the four detenus were revoked by a common note put up by Senior Technical Officer on 14th January, 1985. The suggestion by the Senior Technical Officer, was that since the detaining Authority had failed to furnish copies of relevant documents within the time prescribed the orders had become invalid and were liable to be qu...
Tag this Judgment!