Delhi Court September 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 7 of about 65 results (0.018 seconds)Kelvinator of India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC59Tri(Delhi)
1. The two questions surviving for consideration in this Appeal are whether (i) the time limit of raising demand of duty should have been extended time limit of 5 years or the shorter time limit of 6 months; and (ii) the duty should have been determined under Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as held by the lower authorities or under Rule 9A(l)(ii) as claimed by the appellant.2. In the grounds of appeal the appellants had claimed that parts of cash registering machines were not classifiable under Tariff Item 68 but under Item 33-D. This plea was given up by Shri V. Sridharan, Chartered Accountant representing the appellants. We have therefore, to confine ourselves to the two questions set out in para 1 of the order.3. While the Department claimed that parts of cash registering machines were classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the Ist Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Tariff Item), the appellants all along contended that they were class...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Mehta Vs. Saroj Mehta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi327; 1986(10)DRJ8
Leila Seth, J. (1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Judge dismissing the application for divorce brought by the appellant-husband. (2) The marriage took place on 18th February, 1964 and it resulted in two children, one daughter born in May, 1966. The other is the son born in September 1967. (3) The appellant-husband brought an application for restitution of conjugal rights. The application for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of the appellant-husband ex-parte on 30th May 1975. Within a few months, to be precise on 30th October, 1975. the husband filed an application for divorce on the ground of adultery. His allegation being that the wife was leading an adulterous life. That petition has not proceeded further. The reason given by counsel for the respondent is that because the payments which had been directed to be made under Section 24 of the H...
Tag this Judgment!S. Joginder Singh Vs. Nirmal Naini Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi305; 28(1985)DLT418; 1985(9)DRJ301
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal raises an interesting question of law. The question is: Whether the order of eviction dated October 25, 1978 made by the Addl Rent Controller under clause (j) of the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (tor short 'the Act') but in violation of Section 14(10), was an order without jurisdiction and thereforee a nullity and incapable of execution (2) Khem Raj Ahuja (since deceased) was a tenant in respect of a shop No. 10-B, Khan Market, New Delhi- Mis- Nirmal Naini Mehra, the landlady, bought a petition for his eviction from the said shop on the allegations that the tenant had caused substantial damage to the shop by demolishing a wall. The Addl. Controller, holding that the tenant had caused substantial damage to the premises in dispute, made an order for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute in favor of the landlady against the tenant on October 25, 1978. He admittedly did not make any order as contem...
Tag this Judgment!Sunrise Packaging Company Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT384TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that M/s. Sunrise Packaging Company, the appellants, are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper board falling under Item No. 17(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for brevity's sake). During the material time the appellants were engaged in production inter alia 5 Ply corrugated boards with one layer of bitumenised paper. The appellants claim that such board attracted duty exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 46/71, dated 24-4-1971. The department's allegation is that the appellants manufactured 14,997 pieces weighing 25,940.95 kgs. of corrugated boards. The fifth Ply of which was of Hessian laminated with kraft paper o...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Vs. the State and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1703; ILR1985Delhi807; 1986RLR81
Sharief-Ud-Din, J. 1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ quashing the order by which history sheet of the petitioner has been opened by the respondents and his name entered in Register No. 10 of Police Station Sarai Rohilla and directing the respondents to destroy his history sheet, finger prints, foot prints and his photographs illegally taken and kept on the records of Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and also for a direction to the respondents not to call the petitioner to Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, without lawful reasons, 2. The case of the petitioner is that after opening the history sheet and putting his name in Register No. 10 the officers of the aforesaid police station started treating the petitioner as a criminal and harassing him almost every day by calling him to the police station. The petitioner states that by putting his name in the Register and opening history sheet, he has been lowered in the esti...
Tag this Judgment!