Delhi Court August 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Associatfd Soapstone Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT109TriDel
1. A common point at issue is involved in both these appeals. They relate to the same appellants and were argued before us together. We are disposing of both the appeals by this order.2. The appellants produce soap stone powder, by grinding soap stone lumps in an electric grinder and thereafter undertaking some further processes. The soap stone powder so obtained is used as a filler in the manufacture of paper, soap, rubber etc. Finely ground soap stone powder is also used as the base for manufacturing talcum powder which is a cosmetic. The appellants were reportedly supplying their soap stone powder to paper mills and soap manufacturers. The common point of dispute in these two appeals is whether soap stone powder is exigible to duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the other two connected issues to be considered are whether the appellants were entitled to exemption as a small scale unit under Notifications Nos. 89/79-C...
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Deputy Secretary to the Go ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas525(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J.1. The writ petition h as been instituted by three petitioners. The first petitioner is a public limited company which carries on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing textiles and Chemicals and the second and third petitioners are shareholders of the first petitioner. The first petitioner is hereinafter referred to as the company. Originally, the petitioner company appears to have been engaged only in the business of manufacturing textiles at its factory in Gwalior, but in 1955, it obtained an industrial license for setting up a Chemical plant under the provision of the Industries Development and Regulation Act,1951. This plant was to manufacture soda ash to the extent of 66,000 tonnes per annum and caustic soda to the extent of 23,400 tonnes per nannum. This plant went into production in December, 1959. 2. Under the provisions of the said Act, the Chemical plant was expanded from time to time till 1972 when its licensed capacity was 1,68,000 tonnes per annum of soda...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Minocha Brothers P. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Del)346; [1986]160ITR134(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. By a common statement of case, reference has been made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court raising identical questions of law for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessed is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of buildings. The short point for decision is the rate of income-tax chargeable on the company. According to the assessed's case, it is an 'industrial company' which should be charged at 55%, but the Income-tax Officer imposed the tax at 65% as in the past. According to the assessed, various manufacturing processes were involved in the construction of buildings and, hence, the assessed should be treated as an 'industrial company'. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessed's appeal on the ground that it did not manufacture or process goods. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, it was held that the construction of buildings also involved manufacturing processes, like moulding o...
Roshan Lal Bharadwaj Vs. Shiv General Finance (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT364
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) Considerable portions of this application for review are most objectionable as they purport to reproduce observations allegedly made, and opinions allegedly expressed, by us when the appeal was heard and dismissed. It has been repeatedly held that it is very improper to attempt to reproduce the observations made by judges in court in the course of the hearing of a case. We do not propose to spend time in trying to correct the record by dealing with each observation or opinion attributed to us in this application. Suffice it to say that what is stated in this application is far from correct.(2) One of the grounds for review, raised in this application, is that since, in the course of the preliminary hearing, we had sent for the record of the trial court, we ought to have admitted the appeal. It seems to us that this proposition is utterly preposterous. For, if this proposition were to be accepted, then in every case in which the appellate court felt the need to sen...
Addison and Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT437TriDel
1. All these three appeals arise out of the same combined Order-in-Appeal of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and they were therefore, heard together.2. The basic issue involved is the interpretation of certain provisions of Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue) Notification No.198/76-C.E., dated 16-6-1976. Briefly, the notification granted exemption (popularly called "rebate") to the extent of 25% of the excise duty, on excess clearances of certain specified excisable goods.These excess clearances were to be calculated with reference to the base clearance to be determined in respect of each manufacturer in the manner prescribed in the notification.3. The appellants in the present case are manufacturers of cutting tools classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item SI A. They had been manufacturing these goods for several years, but th| goods became excisable only with effect from 1-3-1974. The value of the goods cleared by the appellants from their fact...
Amar Singh and Another Vs. Atma Singh and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas353(Delhi)
Sultan Singh, J.1. This appeal under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated October 19, 1973, granting a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the appellants against the owner and driver of the vehicle. They were allowed two months' time to deposit the amount and in default, future interest at 6% per annum was payable from the date of the award till realisation. 2. Romesh, son Amar Singh aged about 6 years met with an accident on July 18, 1966, at about 5.45 p.m. on the road connecting Railway Phatak and Shahdara Main Bazar, Delhi. He received injuries on head, chest, etc. He was removed to hospital where he died. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the driver of motor truck No. DLG 1023 while driving the same in due course of his employment with the knowledge, permission, express or implied of the ow...
Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Central Board for the Preven ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi152
ORDERH.C. Goel, J.1. M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. (for short the 'Company'), petitioner has been carrying on the business of preparation of soft drinks under the trade names Gold Spot, Limca, Thums Up, Rimzim and Soda Water etc. at their factory premises No. 60, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. They are discharging trade effluents which ultimately fall in the stream i.e. river Yamuna. Shri S. K. Arya,petitioner No. 2, is the Plant Manager of the Company. The Company duly obtained consent order under the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). A complaint under Section 33(1) of the Act was filed by the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, respondents, against the petitioners. It was alleged that the Company has neither put up the treatment plant, nor has started any preliminary step in that regard. It was further alleged that the sample of the trade effluents of the Company was lifted b...
Amar Singh and anr. Vs. Atma Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC451
Sultan Singh, J.1. This appeal Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act') is directed against the award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 19th October, 1973 granting a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the appellants against the owner, and driver of the vehicle. They were allowed two months time to deposit the amount and in default future interest @ 6 per annum was payable from the date of the award till realisation.2. Ramesh son of Amar Singh aged about 6 years met with an accident on 18th July, 1966 at about 5.45 p.m. on the road connecting Railway Phatak and Shahdara Main Bazar, Delhi. He received injuries on head and chest etc. He was removed to hospital but he died. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the driver of Motor Truck No. DIG-1023 while driving the same in due course of his employment with the knowledge, permission, express or implied of the owner o...
Jawahar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT144
J.D. Jain, J.1. The petitioner Along with about ten more persons is involved in a case under Section 302/34 IPC. The deceased was one Pratap Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh. It appears that there was some dispute regarding land ever since the consolidation proceedings and both the sides were claiming to be in possession thereof. According to the prosecution, the complainant side obtained ad-interim injunction from the Civil Court on 25th January, 1985. However, on 26th January, 1985 the accused party comprising Chand Singh, Surjan Singh and Sri Kishan, Jawahar Singh petitioner, Bharat Singh etc. and their ladies went to the land in order to dispossess the complainant side. Chand Singh was armed with a gun and he fired several shots which caused injuries to some of the persons. Subsequently Pratap Singh deceased etc. were seen coming from the side of the village. Thereupon, Jawahar Singh, Sant Ram and Ram Kumar exhorted Bharat Singh, who is brother of the petitioner to open fire. Thereupon h...
Bhupinder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors. Overruled
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-1985
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT493; 1985RLR507
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh, challenges the legality of the detention order passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on 26th April, 1985, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (herein called 'the Act'), with a view to preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods into India and also with a view to preventing him from engaging in ransporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods. By virtue of the said order the petitioner is detained in Central Jail Tihar, Delhi. The grounds of detention also dated 26th April, 1984 were served on the petitioner, on 4th May, 1985. (2) It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had received information during the months of March/ April, 1984 that a gang of smugglers was indulging in smuggling of contraband goods through the Centra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »