Delhi Court January 1986 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.
Arohan Mukhyalaya Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC86Tri(Delhi)
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition to the Government of India, transferred to and heard by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal, pursuant to the provisions contained in S. 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, (the Act, for short) is as to whether on a true construction of Notification No. 145/58, additional duty adverted to in S. 3 of the Tariff Act, 1975, was exempted notwithstanding that the exemption from additional duty had not been specifically adverted to therein.2. Discussing the nature and incidence of the levy adverted to in S.3 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1975, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222=AIR 1985 S.C. 1211-Khandehal Metal Engineering Works v.Union of India, (a) it is S. 12 of the Act that is the charging provision and not Section 3 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1975, seeing that it levies the charge, indicates the taxable event as well as the rate of the levy to be "such as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, ...
Raja Ram Corn Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT1009TriDel
1. In this Miscellaneous Petition, the appellants prayed for summoning the original record of the Adjudicating authority and permitting the appellant-applicant to inspect the said record. After hearing both sides it was ordered by the Bench on 13.9.1985 that the learned SDR shall submit the records of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh relating to the Order-in-original No.11/CE/83 dated 11.5.1983 to the Registrar of this Tribunal within a week, and the learned Advocate for the appellants might inspect the records within a week after those were submitted to the registry.2. In compliance with the order dated 13.9.1985, the learned SDR has submitted the file No. V(15-C) Add. COLLR/15/21/AA&R of the Additional Collector, Chandigarh. The learned SDR has, however, submitted an application bearing appeal No. ED/885/ of 1983-NRB/5097 dated 11.9.85 in which he has stated that he has been instructed to submit that the file being of a confidential nature its production an...
State Vs. Meena Kumari
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes630; 1986RLR319
T.P.S. Chawla, J. (1) The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Meena Kumari because of the discrepancies which he found in the prosecution evidence. In consequence of the discrepancies, he held that the case had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. (2) Before I advert to the discrepancies in the evidence to which the judge refers, I think, it is necessary to recall two rules of practice, which, it seems to me, the judge probably forgot. As I said in Inder Singh and Surender v. State, I.L.R. (1978) 1 D. 633 : 78 RLR.493. 'There are two old rules of practice which must never be forgotten. First, the witness must be cross-examined on all parts of his testimony which it is intended to dispute. Otherwise, what the witness has said in his Examination-in-chief will be accepted as being true : see R.V. Walter Berkley Hart (1932) 23 Cr. A. R. 202 ; Karnidan Sarda Vs . Sailaja : AIR1940Pat683 , Jayalakshmi vs . Jauradhan Ready, : AIR1959AP272 Babulall v. Caltex A.I.R. 1957 Cal 205 and Ram...
Laxmi NaraIn Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi635
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) According to the petitioner there are five criminal cases pending against him. In all these cases, it is his assertion, orders directed him to be released on bail have been passed. Mr. Sharma however submits that in one of those oases namely cases registered under Fir No. 294182 for in offence under Section 420/468/471 of Indian Penal Code, there. is no order directing the petitioner to be released on bail. The petitioner has specifically averred that he has been directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000.00 with a surety in the like amount in that case also. I am inclined to accept the averment of the petitioner for the obvious reason that the petitioner. It is admitted. was on bail in all the cases pending against him till 30th April, 1985 when the surety, who happens to be the pertitioner's wife got her bounds discharged. The plea in this petition and also in the connected petition (Criminal Mic. (M) 1370/85) is that the p...
Moina Khosla Vs. Amardeep Singh Khosla
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Delhi399; 1986(10)DRJ286
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) This is a wife's appeal against the order passed by Shri K.S. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on 11/3/1985. (2) By this Judgment, the wife's petition under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was dismissed. The learned District Judge held that he had no jurisdiction because the respondent was not domiciled in India. He was not governed by the provisions of the Act. (3) The facts giving rise to this, as they emerge from the record of the case are that the appellant, Moina Khosla, (D/oWng.Cdr.B.S. Kalra) was married to the respondent Amardeep Singh Khosia at Delhi on 10/7/1983. It is stated in the petition that soon after the marriage, on 12/7/1983, the appellant petitioner left with the respondent husband for Srinagar and stayed at Srinagar till 17/7/1983. (4) Paragraph 5 of the petition reads as under:- '5. That the respondent during that period twice tried but was unable to consummated the marriage and after t...
Lmtiazi Begum Vs. Shams-ud-din
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ274; 1986RLR457
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the landlady and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 18th May, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller, dismissed the application dated 30th October, 1981 filed in the trial court on 5th November, 1981. By this application the applicant/landlady sought to prove a photostate copy of the money order form of the original money order form and also the original acknowledgement of the money order purported to have been signed by the tenant. (2) To appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to state a few facts. (3) The case of the landlady is that a room measuring 14'x9' situate on the second floor of premises No. 1543. Suiwalan.Jama Masjid Delhi, was let out to the respondent/tenant for commercial purposes in l974@Rs. 200.00 per month. The tenant defaulted in paying the ...
Shiv Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes153; 1986(10)DRJ265
R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) -RULE D.B.(2) On 7th May 1985 Shri K. K. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, passed an order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for the detention of Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra, resident of N-390, Nand Nagri, Sunder Nagri, Shahdara, Delhi, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and engaging in transporting'- smuggled goods. (3) The grounds of detention were served on the detenu as required by law. (4) The relevant facts are these: On 12th April 1985 one Harish Chand Verma and Inder Singh had come at Delhi Airport from Lucknow by flight Ic 436. After they had collected one suitcase bearing baggage tag No. 253235 they were intercepted at the Airport by the customs officers. The suitcase was opened by Inder Singh. The suitcase was found to contain a brief case in unlocked condition. The brief-case contained four packets containing metalic pie...
Emco Transformers Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC91
1. The point to be decided in this case is the appropriate classification of imported formed insulation components for power Transformers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods are strips of Transformer board, having suitable thickness and width for use in transformers. In addition, they possess specially rounded edges to prevent the insulation of the wire inside the transformer from being damaged. The strips, after cutting to required length, are used as spacers between high and low-voltage coils, inside the transformers.2. The lower authorities have assessed the goods under heading 85.18/27(1) of the C.T.A. It is the case of the Department that this heading, interalia, covers "insulating fittings for electrical equipment" which is a specific entry for the subject goods. The Department relies on Note 2 to Section XVI of the C.T.A. The appellants' case is that heading 85.01(1) covers Transformers and since the goods are specially designed components for power transformers, they...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kamal Traders and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: (1988)(7)LC379Tri(Delhi)
1. All these appeals result from orders of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in which he decided appeals filed by different importers against rejection by the Assistant Collector of Customs Refund, Bombay and Assistant Collector of Customs, Oil Department, Bombay, of their refund claims. They concern the assessment of dodecylbenzene. The Custom House assessed the benzene under heading 38.01/19(1), while the importers claimed assessment under heading 27.10(1). The importers furthermore say that imports of dodecylbenzene by them in the past had been assessed by the Custom House under heading 2. Dodecylbenzene has the structure C12H26C6H5. The Collector (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the product was a mixed unsaturated hydrocarbon and the weight of the non-aromatic constituents was more than the weight of the aromatic constituents. In order to be assessable under heading 27.10, the weight of the non-aromatic constituents in the imported product should be more than the aro...
Nasib Kaur and ors. Vs. Balbir Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: I(1986)ACC541; 1986(10)DRJ263; 1986RLR403
S.B.Wad, J. (1) This is the claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation. The claimants had claimed Rs. 1,15,000 but the Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 19,125.00 as compensation. The cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the Driver, the owner and the Insurance Company. Sarwan Siagh, deceased, was crossing the road near Lajpat Nagar bus stand and when he had crossed about half of the other road an oil tanker HRH- 4108 driven by respondent No. 1 came with a high speed from Ashram side and knocked down Sarwan Singh. Sarwan Singh was run-over under the wheels of the tanker and he died on the spot. The respondents contended that when the tanker was passing the road the deceased suddenly came from the fight side of the road running for crossing the road. On seeing him the Driver swerved the vehicle but the deceased came and bit on the tanker himself. (2) Public Witness 4, Vinod Kumar, is an eye witness and he has supported the version of the claimants. Public Witness 9., Krishan ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »