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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Bharat Vijay Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC23
H.R. Syiem, Member (T) for himself and for K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T) 1. The Appellate Collector has written one of the most detailed analysis of a technologically difficult subject and has left nothing untouched; it illuminates the matter as few orders have done. It is a tribute not only to the intellectual attainment of the author but also the depth of understanding and the labour that have gone into this tremendous work. The order examines every detail of each machines and goes into its performance, technicalities, features both negative and positive. One learns the subject by reading this exposition.2. In respect of step and repeat machines imported by M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills, the Appellate Collector wrote seven pages of text and comes to the conclusion that its correct classification was under heading 84.34.The Assistant Collector thought that heading 90.10 was the correct heading. We reproduce these two headings so that we can see their respective coverage : Machinery, appar...
Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC146Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Miscellaneous application praying, inter alia that our Order No. 691/A dated 25.9.1985 be modified so as to reduce the amount required to be deposited in cash in terms of the said order substantially, subject to the execution of a Bond guarantee in lieu of the amount by which it is reduced and extending time for compliance in regard to the cash deposit by at least eight weeks or, in the alternative, directing the applicant to furnish an undertaking not to dispose of their assets, plant and machinery pending final disposal of the appeal.2. The material facts requisite for appreciation of the raison d'etre for the application are- (a) the applicant filed an appeal against an order of adjudication by the Additional Collector of Customs dated 19.6.1985 by which he directed- (i) confiscation of the goods in question under S. Ill (d), subject to redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/- to be realised from a bond furnished by the applicant to secure and dispense with paym...
Surana Commercial Company Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)ARBLR214(Delhi); 29(1986)DLT376
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) On the petition brought by the petitioner M/s. Surana Commercial Company against the respondent Food Corporation of India (in short FCI)the order dated 18-8-1982 was passed by Charanjit Talwar, J. of this Court in the following terms : '...In view of my discussion above, I direct the respondent to file the arbitration agreement contained in Clause XXVII of the contract within four weeks from today and to appoint the Arbitrator as per the terms of the arbitration clause, within two months from today. No order as to costs.' Admittedly, no arbitrator was appointed by Fci within two months period allowed by the Court in the aforesaid order. As a matter of fact, no arbitrator has been appointed by Fci uptil now. It is on account of this default on the part of Fci that the plaintiff has put up the present petition for the appointment of an independent arbitrator by the court itself. (2) This petition has been resisted by Fci by taking up a preliminary objection to the ...
E.R. Squibb and Sons Inc. Vs. Curewel India Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi197; ILR1986Delhi362
C. Goel, J.(1) The plaintiff, E. R. Squibb & Sons Inc. filed this suit against the defendant, Curewel (India) Ltd. for a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining it from selling in any manner its product under the brand name Curechlor' or any other deceptively mark similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff 'Peclor' with respect to the pharmaceutical preparation known as Chloramphenicol. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed this application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the same prayer for temporary injunction till the decision of the suit. (2) The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has been selling the said product under the trade mark 'Reclor' in India from the year 1971 to March 1, 1977 through the instrumentality' of its registered users, Karamchand Premchand Pvt. Ltd. and Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd. and that from March 1. 1977 onwards till now the said product is being sold by its proposed register...
Bridge and Roof Co. (i) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC25Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, dated 3-2-1983.2. The appellants are a Government of India Enterprise manufacturing excisable goods falling under T.I. 68, namely structural fabrication and goods wagons. The appellants filed classification lists which were approved by the Supdt. of Central Excise on 16-11-1975. The local Inspector sent a communication to the appellants on 13-8-1975 asking them to give their option to avail the benefit of Notification 120/75, dated 30-4-1973 regarding the payments excise duty on invoice value.The appellants also state that they are entitled to the benefit of notification 119/75 dated 30-4-1975. According to them in respect of the structural fabrication done on job work basis they would be entitled to the benefit of that notification. The appellants have cleared the goods under appropriate gate passes and RT-12 returns have also been submitted every month.3. While so a show cause notice was issu...
Om Parkash Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)Crimes628; 29(1986)DLT370
G.R. Luthra, J.(1) The present application is for reduction of the amount of the surety bond and the number of sureties. (2) The petitioner was arrested on 12th April 1985 on account of his smuggling activities. On 22nd April 1985 an Additional Sessions Judge directed his release on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 with two sureties for the like amount subject to some conditions. The petitioner was able to arrange sureties and, thereforee, he was released. After his release, the respondent came up with an application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner was not complying with the conditions of bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by means of an order dated 6th May 1985 cancelled that bail. On 8th May 1985 the petitioner was arrested. In the mean while, as it appears, the proceedings under Cofeposa for detention of the petitioner were started and the petitioner was directed to be detained. The arrest of the petitioner was under the pr...
income-tax Officer Vs. Ganesh Trading Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD285(Delhi)
1. The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling penalty of Rs. 1,49,600 levied under Section271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the ITO.2. The assessee is a registered firm, carrying on business as commission agent in foodgrains, besides dealing on its own account in the said commodities. The assessee-firm was carrying on its business from 5190, Lahori Gate, Delhi which premises belonged to Bhagirath Lai.The firm consisted of six partners while two minors were admitted to the benefits of partnership. The said six partners belonged to three groups, namely, Madan Lai, Prem Chand and relatives of Bhagirath Lal who shared profit in the ratio of 37 per cent, 11 per cent and 52 per cent, respectively. Another partnership firm styled Shiv Shakti Trading Co. was constituted on 10-10-1976 with eight partners. Two partners of the said firm, namely, Rakesh Kumar and Kailashwati were common partners as they were partners in the assessee-firm...
Jagdish Parshad and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Goyal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi184
Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) In the main petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for referring their disputes to arbitrator, the plaintiffs have put up this application under Sections 14 and 15 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (in short the Act) and Section 41 read with Ii Schedule of the Arbitration Act, for the grant of temporary injunctions. Partnership was entered into between the parties vide partnership deed dated 23rd September 1982 and which was registered with the Registrar of Firms under the provisions of the Act and wherein the defendants were partners Nos. I to 3 and the plaintiffs partners Nos. 4 to 7. The defendants contributed place of business, i.e. Shop No. C-5581, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar. Delhi of which they were the tenants whereas the capital investment and other financial arrangements were to be made and contributed by the plaintiffs. Each of the defendants had 13 per cent share in the profits and losses whereas...
Nirmal Kapoor Vs. Sushila Devi JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ323
G.C. Jain, J. (1) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated March 18, 1985. (2) On April 14, 1980 Dr. P.L. Johar brought a petition for eviction of the appellant Smt. Nirmal Kapoor from the premises in dispute, i.e. a portion of property No. T-22 Green Park, New Delhi on the allegations that the said premises had been let out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 175.00 on December 1, 1970 and a sum of Rs. 2875 was due towards rent for the period ending March, 1980 which the tenant had neither paid nor tendered within two months of the. service of the notice of demand. (3) The tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The agreed rate of rent was also not disputed. She, however, pleaded that only a sum of Rs. 2.505.00 was due towards rent up to March 31,1980. (4) On October 13, 1980 the Additional Rent Controller made an order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') dir...
R.K. Containers and Steel Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC451
1. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central. Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act" for short) for dispensing with a deposit in a sum of Rs. 1,45,301.69 p. demanded towards duty, Rs. 25000/- towards penalty and for consequential relief, implying, perhaps, stay upon recovery.2. Originally, the demand in respect of duty was in a sum of Rs. 1,65,301.61, out of which an amount of Rs. 20,000/-was already deposited. The amount still outstanding is, hence, in a sum of Rs. 1,45,301.69 towards duty only.3. In the course of the submissions before us, the learned advocate, Shri M.L. Lahoty submitted inter alia that- (b) the insistence on a deposit of the balance amount of duty and the penalty in full will cause undue hardship to the applicant.4(a). On a question as to whether we could decide the issue of prior deposit, in terms of Section 35F of the Act at this stage on the existence of a prima facie case, the learned counsel invited our attention to para 6 of the decision of the A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »