Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 5 of about 90 results (0.012 seconds)Madhav Saran and Gopal Saran Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC656Tri(Delhi)
1. A11 the three captioned appeals were originally the Revision Applications before the Central Government. The same now stand transferred statutorily for being dealt with as appeals.2. Factual backdrops: It is the case of the Department that as a result of the search of luggage of the appellants on 24.1.68 while they were waiting on Platform No. 5 of Bareilly Junction, one silver bar weighing 5.500 Kgs, one wrist watch (Hency Sandoz) 17 jewels, and one slip of paper with some accounts written on it were recovered from the luggage of the appellant Shri Madhav Saran. Likewise 45 slabs of foreign marked gold weighing 450 tolas of foreign markings and two basnis made of cotton cloth were recovered from the luggage of the appellant Shri Gopal Saran. The same were seized on a reasonable belief under the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126-H(2)(d) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 Part XII-A(Gold Control). After the usual investigation Show Cause Notice was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes55; 31(1987)DLT105
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Basant Kumar has moved the present application for being released on bail, charged with the offences under Sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. (2) The present petitioner was arrested from Bombay in the early hours o (3) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the application is that a photo copy of this very document had earlier been recovered from the almirah of Coomar Narain at 16, Hailey Road, New Delhi, during the night intervening 17th and 18th January. 1985. The said document was not admittedly kept in sealed cover and the possibility of another photo copy having been procured and planted on the present accused cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that Shri T. Maneklal who is the kingpin in the whole drama has since been released on bail and the present petitioner, who according to the prosecution itself, was one of the stooges of Coomer Narain, is also entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Reynods Tobacco Company Vs. Indian Tabacco Company Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(1)ARBLR156(Delhi); 32(1987)DLT177
Goswami, J.(1) This application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff-company for the grant of interim injunction in a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent to restrain it from infringing the applicant's registered trade mark 'NOW' and from passing of its goods as those of the applicants as well as for rendition of accounts.(2) The plaintiff is an American Company and is the registered proprietor of trade mark 'NOW' in nearly 80 countries of the world including India. It is alleged in the plaint as also in the application that the trade mark is used by the plaintiff in relation to cigarettes made by it and sold in a large number of the countries in the world. As far as the manufacture and sale of cigarettes concerned, it is sold in various countries but not in India. The plaintiff has given details of its sales and publicity expenses in the plaint. According to the figures mentioned, the sales are worth millions of do...
Tag this Judgment!Kesar Ram Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT126
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) The petitioner was employed in the Border Security Force Academy and at the relevant time was posted at Takunpur. A Medical Board examined the petitioner on 21st August 1982 and found him medically unfit. On that a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why he be not boarded out of service. The petitioner represented against the decision of the Medical Board and on his representation a Review Medical Board was constituted and the petitioner was examined by the Review Medical Board on 4th April 1983. The Board submitted its finding and report which was received by the Director-General. Bsf at Delhi. On 2nd June, 1983 the impugned order was passed and it reads as under: 'NO.660015071 L/Naik Keshar Ram of Btc was boarded out on medical grounds with effect from 21 August 82. He represented against the decision of medical board as such was produced before Review Medical Board and was invalided out from service. He is allowed to avail 180...
Tag this Judgment!Raya Govind Gaonkar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ99
Sananda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner joined the Fifth Royal Maratha Light Infantry in the year 1939 at the age of about 18 years. Later on, he was discharged and transferred to the Royal Air Force on 3/11/1942 when his apparent age was recorded as 21 years because at that time he did not produce the School Leaving Certificate. Later on, however the petitioner obtained the School Leaving Certificate and filed the same in the year 1945 and the petitioner was given an enrollment certificate on 8/1/1945. This enrollment certificate was signed by the Enrollment Officer as well as the petitioner and his date of birth was accepted as 2/8/1921. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued an identity card which indicated his date of birth as 2/8/1921. On 15/7/1974 a discharge order was issued by the Officer in charge, Air Force Record Officer that the petitioner should be discharged from service on 3/11/1975 because on that date he would be attaining 55 years of age which was the date of superann...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Kumar Karel Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987CriLJ238
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) The petitioner Prakash Kumar Karel has filed this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated 7th February 1986 pertaining to him and passed by Shri M. L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India, specially empowered under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974' (as amended), after being satisfied wish the necessity of making the same with a view to preventing him from smuggling and abetting the smuggling of goods, and in pursuance of which order he was detained and kept in custody in the presidency Jail, Calcutta, and for a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ. order or direction for his immediate release from detention. (2) The first contention urged by Shri Herjinder Singh 'earned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner' appeared before the Advisory Board on 7th April. 1986 at Calcut...
Tag this Judgment!Voltamp Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC602Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India against the order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs No. 5.(5 dated 18th August, 1980, which has been transferred to this Tribunal to be heard as an appeal.2. The appellants have submitted that they are manufacturers of transformers and Oil Filter Machine falling under Tariff Item 68. They were holding necessary licence and classification list in respect of the products which had been duly approved. Accordingly, they were maintaining necessary accounts and clearing the said products on payment of central excise duty under Tariff Item 68 as per procedure.They were manufacturing these products since 1969 and on introduction to Tariff Item 68 on 1.3.1978, they obtained necessary licence.3. To facilitate easy movement from site to site, their product 'Oil Filter Machine' was specially designed and equipped with wheel arrangement (with pneumatic tyres).4. They first manufacture base frame structures from M.S. Garder or ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Bhargava Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD561(Delhi)
1. The issue in this case is perhaps res integra so far as our knowledge is concerned. It is quite interesting too.2. The assessee belongs, as we are told in the course of the hearing, to Indian Revenue Service working elsewhere in the Government on deputation. While filing return of income for the year under appeal 1981-82, disclosing income from salary, the assessee claimed that the amount of city compensatory allowance received by him was exempt from tax on the authority of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. S.G. Pgnatale [1980] 124 ITR 391. Besides, he also claimed deduction in respect of the repayment of instalment of loan taken from the general provident fund under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act 1961 ('the Act'). Also, claimed deduction was in respect of contribution made towards C.G.H.S. The ITO allowed neither of these claims. By taking the gross salary and allowing therefrom standard deduction and deduction under Section 80C as per salary certific...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Chand Vs. JaIn Metal Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT94; 1987RLR68
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The respondent Jain Metal Industries Limited obtained a decree for Rs. 1198.25 against the petitioner/defendant and filed a petition for execution of the decree in the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. An application was filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order 21 Rules I and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code . praying that the satisfaction of the decree be recorded and the application of the decree holder for execution be dismissed In this application, it was submitted by the judgment debtor that the decretal amount was paid to Sri Pal Jain who was one of the partners of the decree holder firm on 11th July 1968 and, thereforee, Bo amount was due from the judgment debtor in pursuance to the decree. A stamped receipt given by Sri Pal Jain was produced. In the meanwhile, however the original partnership firm which had tiled the suit for recovery of the amount had been dissolved and the partner who had stated to have received the amount was no longer a ...
Tag this Judgment!S.L. Sehgal Vs. Om Parkash Mittal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT349; 1987(12)DRJ207; 1987RLR1
Sultan Singh, J. (1) On 27/7/1977 the appellant and the respondent made an application under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') before the Rent Controller, Delhi for permission to let out the ground floor of House No. E-239, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi to the appellant for a period of three years. On 28/7/1977statements of the appellant and the respondent were recorded and the Additional Controller granted permission to the respondent to let out the said premises to the appellant for residential purposes for a period of three years with effect from 28/7/1977. (2) On 20/1/1981 the respondent filed an application for obtaining possession of the said premises. On 27/3/1981 the appellant filed objections. He has alleged that the respondent was not entitled to possession of the suit premises : his son P.K. Sehgal was tenant in the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 500.00 from 1/8/1974 to 13/11/1976 when he was transferred to 'Nasik and from 14/11/1976 the appe...
Tag this Judgment!