Delhi Court October 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.
Hanuman Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT364; 1990(19)DRJ201
M.C. Jain, J.(1) Learned counsel for the petitioners have produced photostat copies of some documents running into 48 pages,(2) Heard learned counsels for the parties for about an hour after references from the case diary. I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case. but from the correspondence and other material which has come on record, I am inclined to enlarge the application bail. It is really very sad that the deceased Anita was found in banging condition on 24th June. 1986. She was married only on 20th May 1986. Just after one month and four days the dead body remained lying for two days and it was cremated only on 26-6-1986 when the nearest relative of the deceased bad come. The petitioners have produced a document in the form of the no bjection by the father expressed that he had no objection, the report was filed by him on 8th July, 1986 on which the case under Section 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code . was registered. My attention was particularly invited to...
Man Mohan Singh Bhalla Vs. H.L. Mehra and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT134; 1987(12)DRJ22
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') is directed against the Judgment and order dated 9/10/1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 29/9/1986 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application filed under Section 45 of the Act for restoration of the electricity supply.(2) The appellant was inducted as a tenant by the respondent in a portion on ground floor of C-5 Anand Niketan New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000.00 with effect from 1/12/1985. The charges for electricity were payable on the basis of sub meter reading and water charges were payable at Rs. 50.00 per month. The appellant in his petition under Section 45 and application under Section 45(3) of the Act which were filed on 22/9/1986 alleges that the respondent had been pressurising him to increase rent or to vacate the premises and did not accept the cheque on account of rent for July and August, 1986, th...
Wimco Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC219Tri(Delhi)
1. In connection with manufacture and clearance of safety matches, the appellants M/s Wimco Ltd. had applied for set off of excise duty paid on goods falling under tariff item 68 used as inputs in the manufacture of matches by them. They relied upon Notification N0.178/77-CE dated 18-6-1977 in this connection. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Dhubri rejected the said claim under his order dated 4-6-1980 and made reference to Notification No. 201/79-CE dated 4-6-1979 and Notification No. 264/79-CE dated 29-9-1979 in this connection. He pointed out that the goods had been already cleared by the appellants without availing of set off and under Notification No. 201/79 no cash refund was admissible and that under Notification No. 264/79 set off was not available as duty had been paid by the appellants through banderols.Prior to the date of the said order (that is) on 20-5-1980, the appellants had sent a letter to the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong referring to their claim f...
Devendra Trading Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC228Tri(Delhi)
1. In respect of duty paid on clearances during the period 8-3-1979 to 31-3-1979 on the branded biris manufactured by the appellants, M/s Devendra Trading Company, they preferred a refund claim dated 13-6-1979 addressing the same to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli through the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tirunelveli.This was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 17-7-1980 on the ground that the refund claim was received in the Assistant Collector's office on 10-4-1980, after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. On appeal this order was upheld by the Appellate Collector under order dated 2-3-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government which, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal.2. We have heard Shri Harish Salve, Advocate for the appellant and Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the Department.3. Shri Salve claims that the existing practice in the Collectorate wa...
Usha MartIn Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC360Tri(Delhi)
1. The issues involved in these two appeals are inter-connected and they relate to the same appellants. We, therefore, make this combined order to dispose of both of them. The appellants manufacture wire ropes. Central Excise duty on this item was introduced w.e.f. 1.3.1973 on ad valorem basis. The appellants did not have a regular price list as such of their goods. They sold their wire ropes on contract basis. They had 3 types of sales:- (i) Sale to D.G.S. & D./Government departments on rate contract basis; (ii) Sale to industrial buyers/dealers on individual contract basis. Each contract was filed as a price list for approval of the central excise authorities; and (iii) Stock transfer to other depots located at various places in India. From these depots, the goods were sold to general buyers on contract basis. The dispute is on the last category to sales only in both the appeals. About 60% of the goods were sold ex-factory; the remaining 40% were removed to the depots for eventu...
Collector of Customs Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT65TriDel
1. The above-captioned eight appeals have been filed before the Tribunal, under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, assailing a consolidated order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, on 30-3-1985. The date of receipt of this order, which is appealed against, in the present set of appeals, is given against Column No. 3 in the appeal (Form No. C.A.3) as 2-5-1985. The appeal was first presented at Bombay before the West Regional Bench on 27-5-1986 but has been received in the Registry of this Tribunal on 31-7-1986. The appeals, which have been filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under authority and directions of the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay, in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Act, are accompanied by an application for 'condonation of delay', under signatures of the Principal Collector of Customs himself. The application in each case, received on the same date as the appeals; namely, on 31-7-1986,...
Universal Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD321(Delhi)
1. The appellant private limited company mainly engaged in the business of export of fish objects to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to its assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 (account year ending on 31-12-1979) in the following terms : The learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XI has erred in disallowing the weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of expenditure incurred in its business of export of fish, for the charter expenses paid.2. Relevant facts leading to the controversy have been stated in detail in the orders of the IAC (Assessment) and the Commissioner (Appeals).We may also briefly notice them before stating and thereafter adjudicating upon the rival points of view canvassed before us by Shri S.N. Nanda, the learned authorised counsel of the assessee and Shri R.S. Adhlakha, the learned departmental representative.3. Till the end of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1979-80, the appellant company had not...
Bank of India Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi156; [1987]167ITR668(Delhi)
Sunanda Bhandare, J.1. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were indebted to the petitioner-bank for a sum of Rs. 2,21,000 in respect of certain accounts opened by them in the Connaught Place branch of the petitioner-bank. Since respondent No. 6 had created an equitable mortgage in favor of the petitioner bank by deposit of title deeds of immovable property belonging to her and situated at S-72, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, the bank filed a suit against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for realisation of the bank's dues by sale of this property. This court, vide order dated September 6, 1972, passed a preliminary decree against respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for payment of the mortgaged amount with interest thereon and costs of the suit within 6 months of the date of the decree. Since respondents Nos. 5 and 6 failed to pay the decretal amount within six months, the bank moved this court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and this court on May 21, 1973, passed a final decree directing the m...
Kamala Bakshi and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi180; 1987(12)DRJ13; 1987RLR51
Mahinaer Narain, J.(1) By an order dated 14/8/1984, Chadha, J. had dealt with this application. Aggrieved by the order of Chadha, J., whereby he had granted stay of re-entry upon terms, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed, being L.P.A. No. 131 of 1984 by the petitioner, herein. (2) At the hearing of the L.P.A., on 2/5/1985, a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Prakash Narain, CJ. and N.N.Goswamy,J., passed the order as under : 'IT is not disputed that some of circulars and notifications as such were not before the learned single Judge. Perhaps what was shown to the learned single Judge was a summary of the various circulars issued from time to time . regarding, the fixation of market rates from notifications; however appears to have been shown. In our view and in all fai.(3) The matter has now been placed before me for 'reconsideration the prayers in C.M. 1114 of 1984', and for 'rehearing' on C.M. 1114 of 1984. (4) Before me the main thrust of arguments of Mr. R.K.P. Shankardass...
United Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC329Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, C. No. V/26AA/15/ 1/81 CX. Adj.I dated 10.6.1982 requiring M/s. United Metal Industries to pay duty of Rs. 327,910.60 on 903.335 metric tonnes of iron and steel products manufactured out of imported billets. The order of the Collector also demands differential duty of Rs. 1,324.62 on 10.035 tonnes of flats. The learned counsel for M/s. United Metal Industries, Mr. Beri, however, said that they are not pressing the second matter.2. The main problem arose, because M/s. United Metal Industries imported 903.335 metric tonnes MS billets from the United Kingdom and made products like MS flats, angles and squares. They took exemption under notifications No 206/63-CE, 76/72-CE and 55/80-CE and cleared the goods out. The collector came to the conclusion that Notifications No.206/63-CE, 76/72-CE and 55/80-CE were not applicable, the first because it covered products under sub-item (ia) of item 26AA and, therefore...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »