Delhi Court February 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.K. Singh Vs. Governor, Union Territory of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi591
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned writ petitions which involve common questions of law and fact in brief are that the Air Force Central School, Delhi Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as 'the School'), petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/80 and respondent No. 3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 540/80 is a society duty registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is a recognised private (unaided) school and is governed and regulated by the provisions of the Delhi School 'Education Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). Gr. Capt. C. K. Dhawan was the Chairman of its Managing Committee at the relevant time. Wine Commander S. K. Singh, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 540180 (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') was formerly an officer in the Indian Air Force. He retired from service in June 1978. Thereafter, he was employed as a Bursar in the School by its Managing Committee vide letter of appointment dated 11th April 1978. annexure 'B' to C.W. P. No. 540/80. ...
Lakshman T. Advani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)Crimes197; 30(1986)DLT40; 1986(10)DRJ303; 1986RLR229
Malik Sharief-Ud-din, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The joint Secretary to the Government of India, Sh. K.K.. Dwivedi, passed an order of detention against the petitioner on 20th August, 1985. The detention order was passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The grounds of detention of were served upon the petitioner in jail within the period prescribed by law. The petitioner has challenged the detention order inter alias on the ground that on 30th October, 1985 when the petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board with his counsel he submitted to the Advisory Board that three of his witnesses, Mr. P.P. Thukral, Chartered Accountant of the firm Mr. Prakash and Mrs. Advani were present outside and that they be examined as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner in rebuttal of the allegations made against him in...
Sehgal Industrial Works Vs. Tru-temp Industries and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ71; 1986RLR263
ORDER7, Rule 11. Rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases : (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action : (b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so : (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so : (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : Provided that the time fixed by the Court for correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, ...
inderjit Singh Bawa and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC214Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a common application filed under Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 by the appellants for rectification of alleged mistakes apparent from the records in CEGAT's order of 15-1-1985.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the applicant along with appellants in appeal Nos. 52, 357 and 379 imported cars of the make and model Toyota Corona 1600 DLX Sedan. They presented the manufacturer's invoice at the time of assessment. They challenged the valuation and claimed that 15% discount on the manufacturer's invoice.This plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector also rejected the appeals. On appeal to the Tribunal, on 15-1-1985, orders were passed rejecting the appeals. The Tribunal took into consideration the argument on discount. In para 10 of the said order, the Tribunal held that the assessment had been made on the basis of the manufacturer's invoices and that the invoices did not indicate the grant of any discount.3. In this application t...
Jai NaraIn N. Sadh Shadwara Vs. Pan American World Airways and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT497
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) By this order I propose to dispose of Defendant No. 3's application, I.A. 4060/85 in Suit No. 1693/83 and I. A. 4059/85 in Suit No. 1694/83. However, the facts of Suit No. 1693/83 are being taken into consideration for the purpose of disposing of these applications. (2) In a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,30,49007, the case set up by the plaintiff, M/s. Jai Narain N. Sadh. Sadhwara, in brief, is that the Plaintiff firm air freighted the four consignments of cotton printed cloth articles through Pan American World Airways, Defendant No. 1 of the total value of Rs. 2,91,700.00 from Delhi for being safely carried to and to be delivered in sound condition at the destination airport, Armsterdam of Holland, to the consignee. Defendant No. 3, Armsterdam Rotterdam Bank N.V. (hereinafter called 'Amre Bank') or to the proposed customer after due authorisation for the same by the consignee or consignor, the Plaintiff firm. Defendant No. 2, Ambar Tours Private Limited acted as an a...
Guardian Plasticote Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC71
1. Special Bench 'C' consisting of three Members, heard the appeal (513/80 of M/s. United Paper Products Ltd.) earlier. One of the Members prepared an order suggesting that the issue in dispute may be referred to a Bench of more than three Members in view of certain conflict between earlier orders of the Tribunal. One of the other Members agreed with this proposal, though the third Member did not. Subsequently, under orders of the President, this appeal was directed to be heard by a Bench of five Members, and that is how this appeal has been placed for hearing before us. Since another appeal (174/80 of M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd.) also involved a similar issue, the same had also come, under the orders of the President, to be heard along with appeal No.513/80.2. At the hearing of these two appeals, M/s. Eastern Box Industries (Appeal No. 111/82-C) and M/s. National Laminators (Appeal No. 941/82) were, on their application, heard as interveners.3. We have heard Shri Bhaskar Gupta, Bar...
Consolidated Coffee Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC179Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts in so far material, in this appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, transferred to be heard by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal before it pursuant to the provisions in S. 131-B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter, the Act] are : (a) after negotiation with the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (an Undertaking of the Maharashtra State Government) as well as 'their principal M/s. Gunsuns Sortex Ltd., (of Fairfield Road, London, England) the appellant purchased and imported six nos. Sortex Electronic Colour Seperators (ex. demonstration machines in good condition) conforming to Model 425 together with recommended spares. The Bill of Entry was filed on 7-1-1982, declaring, inter alia, their aggregate assessable value to be Rs. 7,80,029/- ; (b) a notice dated 10-5-1982 was issued to the appellant, alleging misdeclaration of the value and absence of Import Licence cover and consequently commission of offences under Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Act, and requ...
S.K. Seigell Vs. Rakesh Seigell and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR129(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT152
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) This is a petition Shd under S. 41 read with Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act. There are two respondents. The petitioner and the respondents constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of 'S. K. Sei2.ell & Company' by deed of partnership dated 1-6-1981. The partnership was at will. The relevant clause 11 of the partnership deed is as under :- 'The partnership shall be at Will and any partner can retire from the partnership after giving three months notice in writing to the other partners of his/her intention -to do so. During the three month period, the accounts will be made up and the account will be settled as per mutual agreement.'(2) It is stated that respondent No. 2 retired from the partnership after giving a notice on 17-6-1985 under clause 11 as aforementioned. There, thus, remained two partners, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No. 1. On 10-8-1985 the petitioner also gave a notice to respondent No. 1 retiring from the partnership firm. it i...
R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargava and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi363; 29(1986)DLT473; 1986RLR232
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned appeals succinctly are that the appellant is a tenant under the respondent Smt. Sushila Bhargava in respect of a portion comprising two rooms, one kitchen and common use of bath and latrine on the ground floor besides two rooms on the mezzanine floor of house No. 101-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The said house belongs to respondent No. 1 and Shri Raj Kumar Bhargava, respondent No. 2, is her husband. Way back in June 1969 the respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellant on two grounds, namely, (i) bona fide requirement of the landlady as residence for herself and members of her family dependent on her; and (ii) non-user of the demised premises by the appellant for a period of more than six months immediately before the date of the filing of the petition, falling under clauses Ce) & (d) respectively of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Later on, in Apri...
The Andhra Sugar Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC31
1. This is a Revision Application, originally filed before the Central Government, which, on transfer to this Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The point at issue to be decided by us in this appeal is whether the molasses produced by the appellants in their sugar plant prior to 19.6.1980 and used in their distillery located within the said factory after 18.6.1980 was liable to Central Excise duty under Item 15-CC of the Central Excise Tariff. Upto 18.6.1980, molasses was classified under Item of the Tariff as there was no separate Tariff Item for classification of this product. Under Notification No. 118/75-CE dated 30.4.1975, goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, were exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The appellants were availing the benefit of this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »