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.
Subash Rani Etc. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ256; 1986RLR406
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This appeal is filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The respondent No. 1, D.T.C. has also filed an appeal bearing No. Fao 397/80.(2) The accident took place on 17.7.1978 in which Rajiv Bhardwaj was killed in a bus accident. The deceased was going on his cycle to his College, Viz. Shyam Lal College When he was nearing the College and was in front of Gandhi Memorial Higher Secondary School, he was knocked down by the D.T.C. Bus No. Dlp 58. The claimants submit that the Dtc bus was coming on the wrong side from the opposite direction. The Fir was filed after the accident and in the criminal case, the driver of the bus was convicted. The FIR. the post-mortem report, the site plan and the mechanical inspection report were produced in the evidence. These reports go to show that the version of the claimants was correct. The bus was on the wrong side and hit the cyclist from the left front side. The fact of ...
Subash Rani and ors. Vs. D.T.C.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC495
S.B. Wad, J.1. This appeal is filed by the claimants for the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, The respondent No. 1, D.T.C. has also filed an appeal bearing No. FAO. 397/80.2. The accident took place on 17-7-1978 in which Rajiv Bhardwaj was killed in a bus accident. The deceased was going on his cycle to his College, viz. Shyam Lal College. When he was nearing the college and was in front of Gandhi Memorial Higher Secondary School, he was knocked down by the D.T.C. Bus No. DLP 58. The claimants submits that the DTC bus was coming on the wrong side from the opposite direction. The FIR was filed after the accident and in the criminal case, the driver of the bus was convicted. The FIR, the post-mortem report, the site plan and the mechanical inspection report were produced hi the evidence. These reports go to show that the version of the claimants was correct. The bus was on the wrong side and hit the cyclist from the left front side. The fact of ...
Special Steel Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1986
Reported in: (1992)(38)LC152Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals arose from Order No. A-1704/BII-196 dated 26.10.1982 and Order No. A-722-723/BII-151-152/83 dated 2.4.1983 both passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, and were heard together as they were filed by one appellant M/s Special Steel Limited.2. The learned Counsel for Special Steel Limited argued that their product wires were made from wire rods. This was merely a process of conversion and is not a manufacturing process because it is known only as sizing during which a larger diameter rod is thinned into a smaller diameter. This is not a manufacture but involves only drawing into wires. He read central excise tariff 26AA(ia). It will be seen that wire rods and wires were both under the same group and category, subject to the same duty. He read parts of the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Swadeshi Mills 1982 ELT 237 : 1982 ECR 165D (Bombay) and said that in this Judgment the Court ruled that if the raw material and finished products are subject...
Lal Roopchand Parmar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT570TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the Collector has held that the appellants processed 'man made fabrics' with the aid of a curing machine which attracted central excise duty, that they removed such processed fabrics unauthorisedly without payment of the duty and that they did not take the required Central Excise Licence and committed other attendant breaches of the rules. He has ordered the appellants to pay the additional excise duty and handloom cess amounting to Rs. 1,67,365.58, proposed on them a penalty or Rs. 10,000/-, confiscated certain quantities of processed fabrics seized from the premises of the appellants and appropriated the security deposit of Rs. 1,500/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of the said fabrics. The appellants are in appeal before us against the said order.2. During the hearing before us, the appellants admitted that the appliance used by them was a machine. However, they maintained that the process which they undertook with the help of this machine was not cu...
Mohanlal Roopchand Parmar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT54TriDel
1. In the impugned order, the Collector has held that the appellants processed 'man made fabrics' with the aid of a curing machine which attracted central excise duty,' that they removed such processed fabrics unauthorisedly without payment of the duty and that they did not take the required Central Excise Licence and committed other attendant breaches of the Rules. He has ordered the appellants to pay the additional excise duty and handloom cess amounting to Rs. 1,67,365.58, imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-; confiscated certain quantities of processed fabrics seized from the premises of the appellants and appropriated the security deposit of Rs. 1,500/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of the said fabrics. The appellants are in appeal before us against the said order.2. During the hearing before us, the appellants admitted that the appliance used by them was a machine. However, they maintained that the process which they undertook with the help of this machine was not cu...
Narbada Devi Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT291
N.N. Goswamy, J.1. Sagar Mal resident of G-3/86, Model Town, Delhi has been detained by virtue of an order date 10-10-1985 passed by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation and conservation of Foreign Exchange and also preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods viz-a-viz gold and foreign currency. The detention and continued detention has been challenged by Smt. Narbada Devi, the wife of the detenu by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on diverse ground.2. According to the grounds of detention, action on a specific information, a watch was kept on the passengers disembarked from domestic flight No. IC 185 from Bombay at Delhi on 07-09-1984. (Sic) Gopal son of Sarwan Kumar arrived by the said flight from Bombay. After collectin...
Ram Anand Vs. Gurdial Chand and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT495
Yogeghwar Dayal, J. (1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an older dated 22nd March, 1984 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum) Iii whereby the Competent Authority dismissed an application filed before it for permission to execute a decree for eviction already obtained by him against the respondents. (2) The Competent Authority dismissed the application on two grounds ; namely that the application was in Form Ccc was not in Form Cc, and that it was not accompanied by certified copy of the eviction order. (3) The facts alleged in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are that the petitioner, Sri Ram Anand, obtained an order of eviction of the respondents from the Court of the Additional Rent Controller by order dated 21st December, 1964. This order of eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord/petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that this order was affirmed by Shri P...
Ardn Kumar Tandon Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi640
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a writ petition by Arun Kumar Tandon for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and for quashing the detention order stated to have been made on 26th August, 1985, by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi 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 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The subsequent declaration made on 8th October, 1985, under Section 9(1) of the Act by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India is also sought to be quashed.(2) The detention order was passed with a view to preventing petitioner 'from dealing in smuggled goods, viz., gold, smuggling goods, viz., lizard skins out of India and also preventing him from transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods viz.., gold ....'. The grounds on which the detention order has been made were served on the petitioner on 13th September, 1985, w...
Commissioner of Welth-tax Vs. R.N. Goyal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: [1986]160ITR901(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of Wealth-tax Cases Nos. 59, 60 and 61 of 1982 which are applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for directing the income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to draw up a statement of the case and refer certain questions of law to this court which are said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal while disposing of the appeals for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. 2. The brief facts of the case are that wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, which had to be filed by the 30th June of the relevant year under section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, were not filed by the assessed. Notices under section 17 were issued by the Wealth-tax Officer on February 8, 1971, for the assessment year 1963-64 and on December 28, 1971, for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The returns for all the three years were filed by the assessed on September 22, 1973. The wealth assessed by the Wealth-tax Offi...
Tejwant Kaur and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ239
D.K. Kapur, C.J. (1) We have heard this appeal at some length. The only question involved was the question of substituting legal representatives of the deceased defendant. We have gone through the facts on record and also examined the circumstances in which the legal-representatives of the deceased were added as parties. It appears that there was 'only one defendant to the suit, namely, late Gurbax Singh, who was a retired Wing Commander in the Army. He had been granted certain facilities by the plaintiff bank in respect of.certain business he was carrying on at Greater Kailash. It appears that he was served with some difficulty by substituted service and he appeared once to ask for time to file a written statement but he never filed the same. I.A. 1361/83 was moved by the plaintiff bank to substitute the legal representatives of the said Gurbax Singh on the allegation that they had learnt on 5th January, 1983 that he had died. It was further stated that there was great difficulty in f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »