Delhi Court April 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.
Jaswant Kaur Vs. Tikam Dass
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ117
Leila Seth, J. (1) The only point urged in this Civil revision petition is, whether a Rent Controller has jurisdiction to order restitution of premises.(2) The facts arc set out briefly. The petitioner, Ms. Jaswant Kaur the landlady of premises No. 8962 Naya Mohalla, Pul Bangash, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. Mr. Tikarn Dass the respondent is the tenant of the laid premises.(3) The said landlady filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The tenant did not appear and on 4th May, 1981, an ex parte eviction order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller. As a consequence, on 12th March, 19K3, the landlady took possession of the abovementioned premises from the said tenant.(4) However, on 5th April, 19K3, the tenant. Mr. Tikarn Dass moved an application, under Order Ix rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte order of 4th May, 1981 The tenant's said application was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller on 15th April, 1985.(5) Thereafter, on 26th Ap...
V.H. Doshi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC17Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly stated.Shri V.H. Doshi arrived at Bombay Airport as a passenger from U.K. on 16-6-1980. On his arrival, he declared before the Customs authorities, for the purpose of clearance, in due course, "One Video and T.V. Colour to arrive by ship. Documents to be produced at the time of clearance".The unaccompanied baggage arrived by sea on or about 20-8-1980. Baggage Form No. 1534 for the clearance of the unaccompanied baggage consisting of the aforementioned Video and a colour T.V. set was presented to the Customs officer on 20-8-1980. The goods were assessed to duty at 320% ad valorem. The contention of Shri Doshi was that he had made a declaration of his unaccompanied baggage at the time of his arrival on 16-6-1980 and that he was liable to pay duty on the Video and Colour T.V. set only at 120% ad valorem, which was the rate obtaining at the time of his arrival and declaration of the unaccompanied baggage (which was yet to arri...
Tara Art Press Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT465TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-85/82-L dated 30.10.82 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. S/10-323/81G dated 30.12.81 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. Brief facts ' of the case so far relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the appellant firm imported the goods, namely 16 Label and Ticket Offset Printing Machine and presented the Bill of Entry for its clearance under OGL, Appendix 10(3) of A.M. 82 Policy Book alleging that the machine imported figures at S.No. 12(15), Appendix 2 of the said Policy Book. On examination of the imported machine and the connected documents, it was found that the machine imported was only Adasit-Dominant type 714, single Colour offset printing machine and that it was not a "Ticket or Label Printing Machine" covered by Appendix 2 Further, on examination of the Registration Certification No. ND-120/ T-131/ Registration AD1(CP)/71 dated 23.3.19...
income-tax Officer Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD490(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the ITO, New Delhi against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) taking objection to certain reliefs granted by him. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1976-77 and we will take up the points in the order in which they are raised in the grounds of appeal and dispose them of.2. The assessee is a public limited company doing extensive business of several varieties at Kanpur. The first objection in this appeal filed by the revenue is against the allowance of travelling expenditure by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Rs. 2,38,067. Out of a total claim of Rs. 6,37,991 the ITO picked out 9 items totalling to Rs. 2,38,067 for disallowance as capital expenditure. His view was that the concerned persons, who went abroad and incurred this expenditure were negotiating either for the establishment of new industry or for expansion of the existing industry and either of them was on capital account and, thus, the expenditure incurred in that regard could only be c...
Badruddoja Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi293
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The facts are few and as would appear are admitted by and large by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The petitioner prior to his joining the respondent bank on 30-8-82 was employed with M/s. Barry Sons (India) Pvt. Ltd. where he resigned his job on 25-8-82. In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent bank for filling the post from reserved quota of scheduled caste the petitioner had applied for the same and after taking written test appeared before the interview board of Banking Services Recruitment Board Delhi which took place during the year 1981-82. In his application for the post of clerk under Scheduled Caste Quota the petitioner mentioned his name and his father's name as also the religion to which he belonged and stated that he belongs to Hela caste applicable both to Hindus and Muslims and as such has to be declared as scheduled caste. According to the petitioner the members of the community of Hela caste do the work of sweep...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC28
1. The appellants imported Granite Press Rolls. In dispute in this case is their classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as it existed prior to its amendment on 28-2-1986. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents and ordered classification of the goods under heading 84.31 (Machinery for making or finishing cellulosic pulp, paper or paper board). Through this appeal, the Department seeks to have their original classification restored at the higher rate of duty under heading 68.01/16 (Articles of stone etc.).2. A word about the nature and functions of the goods would be helpful in understanding the issues involved. Granite Press Rolls, as their name indicates, are made of granite which is a natural stone. A mild steel shaft runs through the centre of the Roll. The shaft is held in position by means of mild steel end plates. The Roll is a component part of paper finishing machinery. Its function is to give final finish or polish to paper.3. We have heard b...
S.P. Mahna Vs. P.N. Lekhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi469
Aggarwal, J. (1) This petition under the Contempt of Courts Act is an echo of the judgment dated 22nd January 1986 delivered by Shri Mahesh Chdra, Additional Sessions Judge, in the 'Indira Gandhi murder case' in which Satwant Singh, Balbir Singh and Kehar Singh were held guilty of the offences of conspiracy and murder and were sentenced to death.(2) Mr. P. N. Lekhi advocate for Satwant Singh accused, it is alleged, after the pronouncement of the judgment called the Judgment 'a farce upon a farce'. He further is alleged to have stated that 'the Judge is in haste to be elevated to the High Court'.(3) The Hindustan Times of the date 23rd January 1986 reported the statement of Mr. Lekhi under two captions : (1) 'Lekhi calls verdict a farce', and (2) 'High tension at Tihar'. The relevant portions of the news item under the caption 'verdict a farce' read as follows : 'MR,P. N. Lekhi, whose client, Satwant Singh was today convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Prime Minister Indir...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Usha Bhardwaj
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT96; 1986RLR543
G.C. Jain, J.(1) Smt. Usha Bhardwaj, respondent herein, brought a petition under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') against the Food Corporation of India seeking its eviction from the premises in dispute. No. D-44/3, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110024. (2) The petitioner-tenant moved an application under Section 25B(5) of the Act for leave to defend the said eviction petition. Along with this application he moved another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condensation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend. It was averred that service on the F.C.I, was effected through its Secretary/Principal Officer in the Head Office but no notice was sent to the Principal of the Central Institute of Training. The service was effected on the Head Office on March 2, 1985 and the Principal of the Central Tra...
Collector of C. Ex., New Delhi Vs. Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC57
1. This is a reference to the larger Bench for resolving differences in the view taken by the Bench in the matters of M/s. Steel Rolling Mills of Hindustan (P.) Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1984 ECR 1527 (CEGAT) and Moti Lal & Co., Thane v. C.C.E., Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 157 and the order of Special Bench 'C' of the Tribunal in C.C.E., Bombay v. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Surat - 1984 (4) ETR 58.2. The point for difference arose as under :- In the appeals Nos. 365 and 365-A/78-B-I, the show cause notice dated 29-12-1978 proposing to review the orders-in-appeal Nos. 2387 of 77 and 2388 of 77 dated 19-12-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi was issued by the Government of India beyond six months of the order proposed to be revised. In appeal No. 366/78-B-I the show cause notice dated 24-3-1979 was issued by the Government of India proposing to review the order-in-appeal No. 424-CE/78 dated 1-6-1978 passed by the Ap...
Nagpur Re-rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC90Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Government of India against Order No. V-2(26AA)811/ 79/5034 dated 16th June, 1980, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. On the setting up of this Tribunal this has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.2. Briefly the facts are that appellants filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 19,607.86 for the period 12th June, 1976 to 30th March, 1977 to claim the duty relief announced by way of incentive scheme to encourage higher production under Notification No. 198/76, dated 16th June, 1976. As per the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, appellants filed the requisite declaration with the Superintendent of Central Excise on 22-7-76. The fixation of base clearances was communicated to the appellants on 23rd June, 1977. The refund claim was filed before the said Superintendent on 21st September, 1977. In the Order-in-Original the Assistant Collector rejected the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »