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.
S.C. Dikshit Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ157
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23/12/1985 of compulsory retirement passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (j) (i) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules retiring the petitioner from the service of the Delhi Development Authority with immediate effect he having attained the age of 50 years on November 4, 1982.(2) The record of service of the petitioner is mentioned in paras 5 to 9 of the writ petition in these words. The petitioner initially joined U.P. Civil (Executive Service) in 1958. He served in various capacities/posts in Government of U.P. till 1970. In 1970, the Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) had invited names of officers for deputation in D.D.A. from U.P. Government. The petitioner was sent on deputation to D.D.A. by the Government of U.P. in 1970. He joined D.D.A. in May, 1970 as Officer on Special Duty in J.J. Department. The petitioner was...
Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: 1987RLR97; [1987]65STC88(Delhi)
Aggarwal, J.(1) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. has challenged the legality and virus of the notice dated 22nd August, 1986 issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 28th November, 1983 be not suo moto revised under section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called 'the Act'). (2) The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it has its registered office at A-4, Kalindi, New Delhi. The petitioner is registered with the respondents as a registered dealer. The petitioner deals in the manufacture and sale of various goods enumerated in section 14(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 1956 under the expression 'iron and steel. The Assessing Authority for the years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 raised demands against the petitioner in the a...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ena Sethi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC212
S B. Wad, J.1. This order shall dispose of appeal Nos. 231, 232 and 233 of 1980. The Insurance Company has filed these three appeals arising out of the same accident, against the order of the Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, dated 20-2-80. They are covered by the common judgment.2.The Insurance Company in its memo of appeal has raised some legal submissions and some submissions on merits. The Insurance Company cannot in law challenge the award on merits. I would, thereforee, deal only with the legal questions that are raised.3.The first question raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The law on this question is well settled. If the Insurance Company does not produce the Insurance Policy to show that their liability is limited only to a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the liability is an unlimited liability. There is no merit in this submission and is, thereforee, rejected.4. It is then submitted that the liability should ha...
Behari Lal Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT261
S. Ranganathan, J.(1) The appellant is the landlord of a house No. G-1-A, Kalkaji. Since 1962, a single room therein was let out by the landlord to the respondent at a rent of Rs. 45.00 p.m. The landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground that the tenant, contrary to the terms of the lease of the property to the landlord, was using the premises for commercial purposes. He pointed out that the Land and Development Office (L&DO;) had objected to this misuse and given a notice to the landlord on 21-5-1973 to discontinue the wrongful user. The Additional Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the respondent if the misuse of the premises was not put to an end within thirty days from the date of the order. He was of opinion that since the L&DO; was not willing to condone the misuse of the premises, the tenant could not be permitted to continue in the premises availing himself of the benefit to Section 14(11) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (her...
Fertilisers and Chemicals, Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC593Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard this matter as desired by the High Court of Kerala in their order dated 20th March, 1986, in O.P. No. 5728/1981-N. By this order, the High Court quashed the orders of the revisional authority, namely, the Government of India, and remitted the matter to the CEGAT, further observing that the matter deserved disposal as expeditiously as possible.2. The appellants (The Fertilizers and Chemicals, Travancore Limited, Kerala, as also known and hereinafter referred to, as FACT) have a factory where, among others, Ammonium Chloride, Ammonium Phosphate, Superphosphate and Ammonium Sulphate are manufactured. One of the processes employed by the appellants for the production of these items - which are fertilizers - is called 'Naphtha Gasification by partial oxidation'. The Naptha required for this purpose is procured from petroleum distributing companies. Under Notification No. 187/61-CE, the appellants obntained concessional rate of duty by following the procedure set out in Chapter ...
H.M.T. Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT238TriDel
1. The appellants imported watch, crystals (watch glasses). The department assessed them under heading 39.07 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as articles of plastic. The appellants seek their re-assessment under heading 91.01/11 as watch parts.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their submissions and the record. We find that the controversy is settled by Note 3 to Chapter 91 - Clocks and Watches and Parts Thereof - of the Tariff. This note is statutory and is in the following terms:- "3. This Chapter does not cover parts of general use as defined in Note 2 to Section XV, of base metal (Section XV), nor similar goods of artificial plastic materials (which are generally classified in Heading No. 39.07). This Chapter also excludes weights, clock or watch glasses, watch chains or straps, parts of electrical equipment, ball bearings or bearing balls. Clock and watch springs are to be classified as clock or watch parts." Watch crystal or watch glass is, no doubt, a watc...
Sarang Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT81TriDel
1. M/s. Sarang Products, Muzaffar-nagar has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in original No. I-Collr/1984 dated 29-2-1984 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, Div. II, Meerut visited the factory and office premises of the appellant and office premises of M/s. Gaurav Products located in the premises of the appellant M/s. Sarang Products itself at 25/1, Gandhi Colony, Muzaffarnagar, on 7-7-1981, 11-7-1981, 15-7-1981,25-7-1981 and 1-9-1981 and it was found that they were engaged in the manufacture of "domestic electrical appliances", falling under T. I. 33-C C.E.T. These Auto Standard Electric Irons were dutiable. Two firms i.e. in the name and style of M/s. Sarang Products and M/s. Gaurav Products were found to be housed in the same premises.The first firm had four partners namely Shri Shiv Narain Anand S/o Shri Nira Nand Anand, Shri Hari Krishan Anand S/o Shri Shiv Narain Anand, Smt....
Modi Rubber Ltd. Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC302; 1987(12)LC850(Delhi); 1987(29)ELT502(Del); ILR1986Delhi235
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) The short question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether waste/scrap obtained in the course of manufacture of tyres, tubes, flaps and other products by the petitioner company are 'goods' classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of C. E. T. and liable to excise duty. (2) M/S. Modi Rubber Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, petitioner No. I, is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling tyres, tubes, flaps and other rubber products. These goods are manufactured by the petitioner-company at its factory at Modipuram. For the purpose of manufacturing these goods, the petitioner-company mixes rubber with various other Chemicals to form a rubber compound. A small quantity of the compound is rejected during the production process due to certain defects such as wrong mixing or over heating. The petitioner-company claims that this defective or rejected rubber compound is in the. nature of waste. At various s...
Hem Wati Vs. Raj Bahadur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-07-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT121
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the order dated 17-11-1976 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the review petition filed against the dismissal order of the appeal by the appellant was also dismissed. (2) The appellant had obtained an eviction order against the tenant in 1968. In execution one Raj Bahadur and another objector filed their objection petitions claiming to be lawful tenants in their own rights. The objections of the other objector were dismissed but objections of Raj Bahadur prevailed. Against that order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. In appeal the original tenant who was also a party was not served. In spite of two orders for filing process fee, the same was not filed and even at the third occasion, it was filed late. Consequently the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant filed a petition for review which was also dismissed on the same ground. It was urged in the review petition that the ...
Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC85
1. Both these appeals are by the same appellants and involve the same basic issue, they were accordingly heard together.2. The appellants are manufacturers of various machines. These appeals relate to (a) a vertical drilling machine (b) a De Vlieg Jigmil. The machines were valued at Rs. 2,04,773.10 and Rs. 10,45,350/- respectively. The two machines were not entered in the excise records of the appellants and no duty was paid on them. The Excise authorities demanded duty on the machines on the ground that they were complete working units, capable of use in the production or processing of goods.The appellants however claimed that the machines were entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 118/75 dated 30-4-1975, on the ground that they were made out of defective components and kept only as show pieces and for the purpose of training. This plea was not accepted by the Assistant Collector, who confirmed the demands for excise duty of Rs. 10,238.65 and Rs. 83,628.00 respectivel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »