Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 7 of about 90 results (0.012 seconds)Ram Krishan Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT128
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) Agricultural land bearing No. 1281/259 measuring 5 bighas situated at village Kilokri which was owned by Shri Indraj was acquired by the respondent by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 13th November 19^9, By Award No. 1626 dated 17th September 1963 compensation @ Rs. 4000.00 per bigha was awarded. Aggrieved by this assessment of compensation Shri Indraj filed an application for enhancement of compensation and also prayed that the awarded compensation be paid which he would be willing to accept under protest. The compensation @ Rs. 4000.00 per bigha was received by Indraj on 4th August 1964, however on the receipt it was not mentioned by him that he was receiving it under protest. When the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed by Indraj the Land Acquisition Collector refused to forward the same to the Additional District Judge, Delhi on the ground that the compensation was received without protest by Shri In...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ116; [1987(54)FLR116]
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 2/4/1973 granting approval to the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (2) The two main grounds on which the removal of the petitioner has been challenged are : (1) that the order of removal was not passed by the competent authority inasmuch as the order of removal was passed by the Deputy General Manager whereas the order of removal could be made only by the General Manager; and (2) that the passenger witness who had given a statement against the petitioner had not been examined and thus the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine this witness and, thereforee, the inquiry was vitiated. (3) This petition was dismissed in default on a previous occasion, however in the interest of justice the petition was restored. Even today, no one appears for the petitioner. S...
Tag this Judgment!Basant Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC577Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. M.P.(14/81)22 of 1983 dated 20.8.1983 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad confiscating the seized goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of a Redemption Fine of Rs. 15,000/- and also demanding duty at the appropriate rate on 75 reels besides imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/-.2. Factual backdrops : A show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why a penalty be not imposed upon them under various Rules of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and why the seized reels be not confiscated and why duty be not demanded was issued to the appellants.The said show cause notice was served on the appellants on 30.3.82 and at the request of the appellants the time was extended upto July, 1982 for facilitating the appellants to inspect the record. On 12.4.1983 it was intimated by the appellants that since the factory of the appellants was under lock out the time may be granted to en...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT347TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture goods which were being classified under 15A(2) of Central Excise Tariff (CET). These goods were exempted by virtue of Notification No. 68/71-C.E., till 28-2-1982 on which date certain changes took place in the description of Tariff Item 15A(2).Notification No. 52/82 was issued on 28-2-1982 and the goods manufactured by the appellants were required to pay duty @8% ad valorem. On 22-4-1982, another Notification (No. 149/82) was issued by which the goods were again exempted from payment of duty.2. The dispute arose in respect of goods cleared by appellants during the period 28-2-1982 to 21-4-1982. When a show cause notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty and threatening other action, the appellants pleaded that they were not liable to duty or any other action under the Central Excise Law. Following three reasons were given in support of their pleas :- (a) clearances made on 22-4-1982 have been taken for working out the amount of demand. From 22-4-...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Mill Stores Syndicate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD41(Delhi)
1. These two appeals by the revenue raising identical grounds may be conveniently consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. In the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee-firm carrying on business of purchase and sale of mill stores and chemicals and distributorship of Fenner V. Belts in certain specified territories had paid brokerage and commission amounting to Rs. 24,814. Its turnover in that year amounted to Rs. 84,77,156. Similarly, in the assessment year 1982-83 brokerage and commission amounting to Rs. 16,318 had been paid when its turnover was of Rs. 93,29,606. According to the IAC (Assessment) the expenditure by way of brokerage and commission was not verifiable. Further, according to him, the assessee had failed to prove by evidence that the payment of brokerage and commission had been made for the purposes of business. He, therefore, disallowed estimated sums of Rs. 12,000 in each of the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. When the matter went up in appeal before th...
Tag this Judgment!Pirji Miraj-ud-dIn Vs. the Delhi Wakfboard
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT130
C.L. Chandhry, J. (1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned subordinate Judge dated 8-3-1977 by which the application or the petitioner made under Order Xxii Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as legal representative or Pirji Salim-ud-din was rejected. (2) The facts of the case in brief are that Sajjadanashin Pirji Salim-ud-din was Mutawalli of Dargah Qadam Sharif. By notification dated 31-12-1970 it wa? notified that Delhi Wakf Board would be the Mutawalli of Dargah Qadam Sharif. Pirji Salim-ud-din filed a suit for declaration challenging the above said notification and claiming himself to be the mutawalli of the Dargah. During the tendency of the suit Pirji Salim-ud-din died on 18-2-1974. Shri Miraj-ud-din, son of the deceased filed an application under Order Xxii Rule 3 of the Code for impleading him as the legal representative of the deceased/plaintiff on the allegation that he was appointed as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli of t...
Tag this Judgment!Paramjit Singh Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi417
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) The petitioner Paramjit Singh was detained in Central Tail, Tihar, New Delhi, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) under the order of detention dated 18th November, 1985 passed by Shri K. K. Dwivedi. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered in that behalf.(2) The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the quashing of the detention order passed against him and for a direction by way of writ or otherwise for his immediate release from detention. The order of detention was passed by the detaining authority with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by concealing or keeping smuggled goods and engaging in transporting smuggled goods. It would be unnecessary to set out the petitioner's alleged activities on the basis of which this detention order was passed.(3) The main ground urged by Mr. Harjinder Singh Advocate learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!S.F. India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC212Tri(Delhi)
1.This is an appeal against the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, No. 379-B, dated 18.7.1981 passed on an order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta No.99(33)/73/Collr.-108/76, dated 26.7.1976. The appellants, M/s. S.F.India Ltd., were charged by the Central Excise with removing 193 man-cooler fans from their factory from 5.7.1967 to 10.6.1969. They engaged M/s. Flow Link Industries on contract to get piece rate jobs and supplied the raw materials to them for assembling electric fans according to their own specifications. M/s. S.F. India Limited were said to have held the goodwill and proprietary rights on the man-cooler fans. In the investigations, the Central Excise found that M/s.Suburban Industrial Works understood and engaged in the manufacture of electric fans from 5.7.1967 to 10.6.1969and manufactured 193 man-cooler fans which were removed from the factory to M/s. Flow Link Industries for onward transmission to M/s. S.F. India Ltd. Neither M/s...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhogiram and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC319Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.17/IND/Gold/85 dated 24.7/85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Factual backdrops: In pursuit of intelligence report the Preventive Staff of Central Excise, Head Quarters, Indore paid a surprise visit to the residential premises of the appellants Shri Bhogiram, a Partner of the mortgaging firm, viz., Jain & Sons of Lashkar on 26.5.81 and as a result of the search of the entire premises recovered the primary gold weighing 94.000 Grams, new gold ornaments weighing 169.750 Grams and old gold ornaments weighing 963.500 Grams. The same was seized for contravention of Section 8 and Section 16(1) of the Gold Control Act.During investigation statements of the appellants Shri Bhogiram and his wife Smt. Sona Bai were also recorded; As a follow-up action the appellants Shri Bhogiram and Smt. Sona Bai were called upon to show cause as to why the seized gold be not confiscated and penalty be not imposed under the...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Controller of Estate Vs. Tirath Ram Hand
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)20ITD80a(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Controller against the order of the Appellate Controller by which he held that the assessee's share in the goodwill, which was computed at Rs. 49,448 was not to be included as an asset passing on the death of the deceased.2. The deceased Shri Tirath Ram Hand, who died on 14-8-1981, was a partner in a firm called Jaycee Machinery Mart. In computing the estate liable to estate duty, the deceased's share in the goodwill of the firm of Jaycee Machinery Mart was not taken into account but the Assistant Controller on the other hand was of the opinion that there was goodwill attached to that firm and computed it at Rs. 49,448 and included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased.3. On appeal the Appellate Controller held that Clause 3 of the partnership deed dated 13-4-1977 of the firm of Jaycee Machinery Mart provided that in the case of death of a partner, the partnership would stand dissolved and the legal heir of the deceased would ...
Tag this Judgment!