Delhi Court September 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 65 results (0.022 seconds)Ravinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Ravi Raj Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR473(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT190; 1986RLR93
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is a petition under section 51-A of the Designs Act, 1911 (for short the 'Act') for cancellation of design No. 150873 in class 4by the Controller of Patents and Designs who is respondent No. 2 in THE petition. This design pertains to glass tiles in the name of R&M; Co., affirm of which Ravi Raj Gupta, respondent No. 1, is the proprietor. The date of design is 8/06/1981. It is mentioned in the certificate that the novelty of this design resided in the shape and configuration and in particular to the rounded corners and on the mottling design on the top and side walls of theglass tiles and registration of the design with rounded corners is shown in thecertificate. This certificate also recites as under : 'NO claim is made by virtue of this registration in respect of any mechanical or other action of the mechanism whatever or in respect of any mode or principle of construction of the article.'(2) The petitioner is also a manufacturer of glass mosaic tiles And carr...
Tag this Judgment!Jenson and Nicholson (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT676TriDel
1. M/s. Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd., Calcutta had filed a Revision Application to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under Section 36 of the Central Excises, and Salt Act, 1944 being aggrieved from order in Revision No. 16 of 1981 dated 22-6-1981 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After coming into existence of the Tribunal the said Revision Application was transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an Appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the sample of the product "Bituminous Black Varnish" was drawn on 14-1-1980 and sent to the Chemical Examiner for test and as per Chemical Examiner report the sample was in the form of black coloured free flowing liquid composed of Bitumin. Resin and volatile organic solvent. It gave an adherent tack fres transparent coating. It had the compositi...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Madhusudan Dashmana and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT454; 1986(10)DRJ53
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of R.S. As. Nos. 157 & 158 of 1972 and R.S.As. 57, 58, 59 and 60 of 1978 as all these appeals are between the same parties and common question of law and facts arise. These appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. (2) The years in question are '1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The first two appeals of 1972 deal with only one point. In this case assessment was set aside only on the ground that the completion certificate in respect of property in dispute had not been issued and as such the property being incomplete was not liable to house-tax. In view of the various pronouncements of this Court to the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent does not press this issue. These appeals have, thereforee, to be allowed. Consequently R.S.As. Nos. 157 of 1972 and 158 of 1972 are allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the two courts below are set aside. Since the remaining issues remained und...
Tag this Judgment!Mehar Singh Vs. the Appellate Board Foreign Exchange
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(1)Crimes561; 1986(10)DRJ19
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, challenging the legality of the order dated 15th February, 1975, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board whereby the order of the Director of Enforcement finding the appellant guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 5(1)(aa) and section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, was upheld. It is not necessary to notice the facts of the case in detail as, in my view, the appeal is liable to be decided on the short ground that the appellant's applications made to the Director of Enforcement and before the Appellate Board during the pendency of the appeal to summon four witnesses for cross-examination, were not dealt with by the authorities below.(2) A bare reading of the order under appeal shows that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of S/Shri Tarlochan Singh, Balbir Singh, Ujagar Singh have been read as eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Qadir and anr. Vs. Hamid Hussain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT107
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of SAO 203 of 1974 as both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 31-7-1974 passed by the Rent control Tribunal.2. Shri Jagdish Prashad and Rajinder Kumar, the predecessor in-interest of the present appellants filed 17 petitions for ejectment against various tenants in respect of property bearing municipal Nos. 1483 to 1492 ward No. XIV, Gali Chulhe Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The petitions were filed on the ground that the premises were required by them bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding and that the said work of rebuilding could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by the respondents-tenants. The petitions for ejectment were instituted in 1960. The Rent Controller found al the ingredients covered by Section 14(i)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act to be satisfied by the petitioners and as such he found that the premises were required bona fide by the petitioners for the purpose of rebuilding and that suc...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan Saran Ashok Saran Vs. Amrit Lal Chopra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi301; 29(1986)DLT430; 1986(10)DRJ1
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition which is directed against order dated 9th February 1979 of a Sub-Judge 1st Class. Delhi, succinctly are that way back in 1977 the petitioner, a Hindu Undivided Family, instituted a suit for possession against the respondents on the allegations that the premises in question viz. Flat No. 39, Saran Building, Ram Nagar, Qutab Road, New Delhi, had been let out to Ram Chand Chopra, deceased father of the respondents, at a monthly rent of Rs. 29.69P. The contractual tenancy of Ram Chand Chopra was terminated vide registered A.D. notice dated 12th December 1969 and he was called upon to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff-petitioner on 1st February 1970. However, on the termination of his contractual tenancy Ram Chand Chopra continued to occupy the premises as a statutory tenant. He died on 9th May 1975 leaving behind the respondents as his legal representatives. So, the contention of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Manufacturing Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC594Tri(Delhi)
1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by the appellants, namely, gas lighters which work on the Piezo-electric principle and are of the kind generally referred to as "Electronic Lighters" were classifiable under Item 39 of the Central Excise Tariff as it stood at the relevant time. The description of the tariff item at that time was as follows : 'Mechanical Lighters' means any mechanical or chemical contrivance for causing ignition, which is portable and which operates by producing a spark or flame, whether by itself or when brought into contact with gas, and includes a mechanical lighter issued from a factory in an incomplete state or requiring for its completion the addition of a flint." 2. For completeness it may be added that the description of the above item was amended through the Finance Act, 1982, to read as follows : 'Lighters' means any mechanical, chemical, electrical or electronic (containing piezo-electric materials) contrivance for causi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Subbaraj and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC650Tri(Delhi)
1. The point of dispute involved in the above-mentioned two appeals is a common one, the appeals relate to the same respondents and were argued before us together. They are, therefore, being disposed of by us by this combined order.2. The respondents purchase raw bones of animals, break and crush these bones in a mechanical device called disintegrator in their three factories located at different places and sort the resultant products into- (1) crushed bones (i.e. bones of dimensions ranging from 3/8" to 5/8", They export some of the above products and sell the rest in India. The common issue involved in the two appeals before us is whether the above products were classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff or not. The period of dispute is between 1977 and 1979.68. In his order relating to the second appeal mentioned above, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 also on the respondents for breach of rules. In appeal, the Appellate Collector decided the matter in favour of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2544Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants are manufacturers of 'cotton tyre cord warp sheets'. They were clearing warp sheets as cotton yarn paying duty under T.I. 18A till the beginning of 1975. They were intimated by the Inspector of the Central Excise, Konnur vide his letter dated 26/28-7-1975 that tyre cord warp sheets are considered as cotton fabrics by the Department and not as cycle cord yarn and appellants were asked to maintain accounts in sq.mts. and not in kgs. Again appellants were intimated by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hykeri vide his letter dated 4-8-1975 that cycle cord warp sheets are to be treated as fabric falling under T.I. 19 and appellants were advised to file classification list immediately. The appellants registered their protest under their letter dated 15-8-1975 and filed a classification list and paid duty under protest on such sheets as cotton fabrics for the period 19-8-1975 to 19-6-1976.2. A show cause notice was served up...
Tag this Judgment!Bloomfeld Trading Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(6)LC483(Delhi)
ORDERSunanda Bhandare, J.1. This letters' Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.2. The appellant M/s. Bloomfeld Trading Company under a license issued on 10th October, 1968 by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Kanpur were allowed to import parchment paper-wood free board-highly glazed and finished and glassing paper. An amendment was incorporated in the aforesaid import license at the request of the appellant on 6th January, 1969 and the following items were added: (a) Facial and Toilet tissue; (b) Napkin and Serveitta tissue; (c) Base Paper for Napkins; and (d) Matrix Boards. The appellant placed an indent with M/s. F. Gardner Corbeet Limited for supply of Napkin and Serveitta tissue paper. The said firm confirmed the order placed upon them. Two different consignments were shipped; one on ss Minkoi and other on ss ...
Tag this Judgment!