Delhi Court December 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.
Shankar Aiyer and Co. and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT254; 1987(12)DRJ204
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) In this appeal, most of the facts are not in dispute. Appellant no, I, V. Shankar Aivar & Co. is a firm of Chartered Accountants. Appellant no. 2, Shri V. Rethinam is one of the partners. The Company is running its office at 8, S. Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi. The building in question falls in Zone D-5, and according to the Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plan of the area, the premises can be used for residential purposes only. On 23-9-80, Public Witness-1, Shri B.S. Saini, Junior Engineer, inspected the premises and found the same being used for office purpose against the prescribed user of residential. On the report of the Junior Engineer, the complaint Ex. Public Witness 1/F was filed against both the accused after obtaining requisite sanction from the Competent Authority. After the cognizance was taken, both the accused put in appearance and separate notices under Section 251 Cr. P.C. were given to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (2)...
Purshottam Kumar Vs. M.L. Wadhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ162
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.(1) By virtue of a detention order dated 29/4/1986 passed by Shri M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) the petitioner was detained with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. There is no need forms to give details of the events that led to the passing of the order of detention.(2) The petitioner has challenged his detention on a variety of grounds. In fact, in this petition the petitioner had made a grievance that the representations made by him were dealt with by the concerned authorities after a long time which itself vitiates the detention.(3) I have heard the counsel for the parties. Mr. Sunil Mehta learned counsel for the petitioner raised a peculiar and important point involved in this petition. The point is peculiar to this case in the ...
West Coast Paper Mills Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC437Tri(Delhi)
1. This order will dispose of the appellants prayer for reference to the President of the Tribunal for constitution of a Special Bench of 5 Members in terms of order dated 13-3-1984 passed by the Bench.2. As the facts are rather unusual it is necessary to briefly set them out.3. The appeal was received on transfer by this Bench consequent to Misc. Order No. 137/86-A dated 3-7-1986 followed by minutes dated 10-7-1986 of the President of the Tribunal. It was taken up for hearing on 18-8-1986 when Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Advocate representing the appellants urged that earlier the Bench had ordered constitution of a 5 Member Bench in view of certain conflicting decisions on the point of other Benches of the Tribunal. Shri Sundar Rajan, learned JDR who represented the respondent agreed that this was the factual position.An examination of the orders on the file showed that on 13-3-1984 Bench 'A' consisting of the then President Shri F.S. Gill, the then Member Shri D.N. Lal and Membe...
Roma Deb and ors. Vs. R.C. Sood and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas350(Delhi); ILR1986Delhi498
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) In the present winding up petition by this order I am deciding a preliminary objection raised .by the company as to maintainability of the petition. The objection is on the ground that the petition is not supported by an affidavit duly verified as required under Rule 21 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules'). (2) The respondent company is engaged in the business of colonisation and acts as builders and colonisers. This is as per Clause-8 of the Memorandum of Association of the company. It is stated that some tune in 1962 the company offered to sell plots of land in the Eros Garden Colony developed by it. There was large scale of advertisement. The colony is stated to be situated near Suraj Kund in the State of Haryana. There are as many as 17 petitioners who, it is alleged, wanted to buy plots and paid varying amounts to the company during the period 1963-64. The details as to which plots these petitioners wanted to buy and were allotted and the a...
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Vs. Bawa Sandeep Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT251
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This revision is directed against the order dated 18th December, 1984 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, Addl. Rent Controller whereby the two applications moved by the tenant-petitioner Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. and by respondents 2 to 8 asserting that the eviction petition of the landlords-respondents No. I and 2 did not disclose the cause of action and thus merited rejection, were dismissed. (2) The perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Addl. Rent Controller referred not only to the averments made in the eviction petition but also to the letters referred to therein and then came to the conclusion that the objection under Order Vii Rule Ii Civil Procedure Code was not made out and was without any force. (3) The perusal of the eviction petition shows that the premises in question were let out initially by the attorney of the petitioners to the tenant- respondent No. 1 where after the attorney allowed the tenant to induct in the premises in question it...
Sukhbir Singh and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: 1(1987)ACC329
M.K. Chawla, J.1. Shri Sukhbir Singh, petitioner No. 1 is the conductor of bus No. DLP 2556. This bus stands registered in the name of Shri P.C. Kohli of Kohli Transport Service, 114-A, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 Shri S.S. Kohli is the son of the owner of Kohli Transport Service.2. On 27-11-81 at about 6 P.M. petitioner No. 1 was driving the vehicle in Azadpur area when he was intercepted by S.I. Ranajanana Singh, (Traffic). On examination, the Sub-Inspector discovered that the bus was over loaded and was carrying 170 passengers against its carrying capacity of 70 persons. While the Sub-Inspector was in the process of preparing the challan, petitioner No. 1 escaped. After sometime, both the petitioners came there and were produced before the Mobile Court of Shri S.C. Gupta, Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Petitioner No. 1 was served with the copy of the challan under Section 4.38 read with 7/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act while petitioner No. 2 was served with the co...
Tirath Dass Taurani Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT528TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case as stated in the order-in-original and not disputed by the appellant as well are as follows : "On 28.10.83 in pursuance of an information the Hqrs. Office, Jaipur Preventive Party, Jaipur, searched the residential premises of one Shri Tirath Dass at 90 Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur on the authority of search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector (Prev.), Customs, Jaipur. During the course of search, it was ascertained that the family had two Bank Lockers. However, the two lockers owned by the family members could not be searched on 28.10.83 as the search of residential premises could only be completed late at night. Accordingly on 29.10.83 the locker No. 7 of State Bank of India, Kanwar Nagar Branch in the name of Smt. Radhabai wife of Shri Tirath Dass and their daughter Kumari Meena Taurani, was searched in the presence independent witnesses which resulted in the recovery of foreign marked gold coins and bars embeded in ornaments as described below :S.No.Descrip...
Tarsem Lal Maglani Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT797TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 1/85(G.C.) dated 28-5-85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant and also ordering for the cancellation of his gold dealer licence.2. Factual backdrops : In. pursuit of the information, the Customs (Preventive) Officers on 13-7-83 apprehended one Shri Jitender Kumar Bhutani & Kashi Ram, resident of Sri Ganganagar while he was boarding the train bound for Sri Ganganagar at Jodhpur railway station. As a result of his personal search 5 pcs of primary gold of different sizes and shapes were recovered and seized along with a piece of paper on which figures 594.850 and 1,01,997 were written. Two railway tickets representing railway fare and reservation were also recovered. The purity and weight of the seized gold was also tested. After proper verification, weighment and testing, the Valuer certified that the seized gold weighed 594.000 gms of 24 carats pur...
Kwality Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC423Tri(Delhi)
1. According to the appellants M/s. Kwality Containers Pvt. Ltd. they manufacture pilferage proof caps falling under TI 42 CET as also aluminium tear off vial as well as an aluminium tear down vial seals falling under TI-68 CET. In respect of the pilferage proof caps they were claiming exemption under notification 83/83 and in respect of the other aluminium vial seals they were claiming exemption under notification 77/83. In respect of these aluminium vial seals the department had a doubt on the classifiability under TI 68 but, subsequently, the Assistant Collector under order dated 8.10.1980 settled their classification under TI 68 CET.2. After a visit of their factory on 21.1.1985 during the course of which 3,31,000 pieces of tear off and tear down vial seals were seized under the belief that they are classifiable under TI 42 CET and not under TI 68 CET. Action was initiated by issue of notice dated 6.6.1985. It was alleged that as these seals had been manufactured and cleared witho...
T.L. Arora and ors. Vs. Ganga Ram Agarwal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT31
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This petition has been filed by defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 under Order Vi Rules 2 & 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the request that paragraphs 5, 6, 9 to 17(a) &(b)& 18 to 41 as well as first sentence of paragraph 42 and the word 'conspiracy' used in paragraph 42 as well as 44 and the word 'conspired' used in paragraph 46 of the plaint be struck out. The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my considered thought to the matter before me and I have come to the following findings. (2) This application has been filed in this suit filed by plaintiffs for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is a validly denominated director of defendant No. 7-company of the allegations that plaintiff No. 1 was a director of defendant No. 7 and at the annual general meeting held on 31st March, 1986 he was to retire by rotation and was to be re-elected as director thereof being the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »