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.
Rexor India Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT79TriDel
1. This is a revision application before the Government of India filed by the petitioner against Order No. 9-MP of 1971 dated 10th February, 1971 passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this application has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.2. The point at issue is regarding correct classification of metallised yarn which is being manufactured by the appellants by the process of cutting into fine lengths of less than 0.14 mm metallo-plastic films, which they were importing from abroad. The lower authorities classified their product as synthetic yarn under Item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants have urged that thin strips being manufactured by them, is not yarn within the meaning of the Tariff Item 18, that the orders passed by the lower authorities suffer for want of application of mind inasmuch as they have been passed pursuant to decision already taken by the superior authorities as...
Santokh Singh Vs. Jagdish
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT127
S. Ranganathan, J. (1) In Ipa 21/84 the plaintiff sought permission to institute the suit as an indigent person. By the order dated 26th September. 1984 an enquiry into the matter by the Registrar was directed. The Registrar after giving notice to the Delhi Administration as well as to the defendant decided the application on 3rd May, 1985 expressing the opinion that the petitioner is an indigent person and is not in a position to pay the requisite court fee. This conclusion was arrived at by the Registrar exparte because en the date on whi'ch the matter was heard there was no appearance For the defendant. She was also under the impression that no reply had been filed to the plaintiff's application though in fact a reply had been filed on 10th April, 1985. The Registrar purported to decide Ipa 21/84 accordingly. This came before the Court on 13th May. 1985 when the learned Judge acting upon the report of the Registrar directed the suit to be registered and the defendant to be summoned....
Vinay Kumar Vs. Nirmala Chauhan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi79; ILR1986Delhi341; 1986RLR386
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment of Shri R. C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 9-7-1985, passed in H.M.A. No. 485 of 1984, whereby the husband's petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion by the respondent wife without his consent, and against his wishes was dismissed. (2) The facts, as they emerge from the record of the case are, that the parties were married on 10-5-1980 at village Pure Chauhan, District Partapgarh, U.P. They lived together at village Gahrenda, District Unnao (U.P.) for a short while, till June, 1980. Thereafter they lived together as husband and wife at Delhi at B-69, Gulmohar Park from July, 1980 to August, 1980. (3) In August. 1980, the respondent wife left her matrimonial home at Gulmohar Park and did not return soon thereafter. It was on intervention of a third party, that she returned to the petitioner/appellant only in December, 1980. Thereafter she lived in Gulmohar Park till Mar...
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC373Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application, originally filed before the Central Government, which, after transfer to this Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants imported chains (Fissenwert) in August, 1978 and declared the same as chains (integral part of machine tool) in the Bill of Entry. The Custom House assessed the goods under Heading No.73.29(1) of the Customs Tariff. The appellants claimed re-assessment of the goods under Heading 84 45/48 of the Tariff. By the impugned order, the Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed the assessment under Heading 73.29(1) on the ground that chains are specific items mentioned in this Tariff Heading and as such the same could not be brought under Heading 84 45/48.3. In the Revision Application (now treated as appeal) the appellants have stated that the chains bearing part No. 802795 were imported for use in Hydroptic 8P jig Boring and Milling Machine. These are integral part of this machine without which the machine cannot be operate...
India Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT19(Del)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19-2-1972 passed by the Central Government whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Board confirmed the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 45,007.00, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is a shipping company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and is carrying on the business of common carriers at sea. The petitioner company's ship s.s. 'Indian Reliance' arrived in Bombay in October, 1963. It was carrying certain packages intended for defense purposes and those packages were unloaded at the Bombay Port. The petitioner-company received a show cause notice No. 1352 dated 13-4-1966 on 15-4-1966 from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department, Bombay in respect of alleged short landing under various items including Items No. G-116, G-117, G-28, G-77, G-151 and G-10. The notice was duly replied and the same resulted in...
India Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC59; 1987(12)LC833(Delhi); 1989(42)ELT543(Del)
Goswamy, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19-2-1972 passed by the Central Government whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Board confirmed the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 45,007.00, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is a shipping company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and is carrying on the business of common carriers at sea. The petitioner-company's ship s.s. 'Indian Reliance' arrived in Bombay in October, 1963. It was carrying certain packages intended for defense purpose and those packages were unloaded at the Bombay Port. The petitioner-company received a show cause notice No. 1352, dated 13-4-1966 on 15-4-1966 from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department, Bombay in respect of alleged short landing under various items including Items No. G-116, G-117, G-28, G-77, G-151 and G-10. The notice was duly replied and the same ...
Chaman Lal Pandbi and Sons and anr. Vs. Primo Departmental Stores and ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT287
Goswamy, J. (1) This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the order dated 8.6.1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction filed by the petitioners was dismissed. (2) Originally petitioner No. I had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute namely first floor of C-315, defense Colony, New Delhi. On an objection in the application for leave to defend regarding petitioner No. 1, not being the owner of the property, the petition was amended and petitioner No. 2 was imp leaded as a party. In paragraph 18(a) of the petition, it was alleged:- 'THE premises were let out to respondent no. 1 for residential purpose and the same are required by the petitioner bona fide for the residence of Shri Prem Pandhi and his family members who is also 'Karta' of Huf petitioner No. 1. since Prem Pandhi...
Mahipal Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT63
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Mahipal, the appellant herein, Along with Surinder Kumar (since acquitted) was charged with the offence of murdering Harjeet Singh. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to imprison- ment for life and to a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also charged with the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, found guilty and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Against his convictions and sentences he has come in appeal. Surinder Kumar was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (2) The case for the prosecution as unfolded by the prosecution witness No. 23 Paras Ram is that on 5th May 1981 at about 7.30 p.m he Along with his friends Gurdev Singh and the deceased Harjeet Singh went for a stroll to Nangia Park. After walking for about 10 minutes in the park, th...
Amod Laul Vs. State and B.N. Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT464
Charanjit Talwar, J. (1) By this revision petition the petitioner Amod Laul who was originally the complainant in the trial court and on whose complaint B.N. Kumar, respondent No. 2 herein, was summoned for an offence under section 45 read with section 48(4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, seeks reversal of the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, passed on 3rd May, 1985, whereby the revision petition of respondent no. 2 was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Magistrate for further action in accordance with law. (2) From a reading of the order of the learned magistrate and also of the impugned judgment a few facts which are not being rebutted emerge. They are: (1) that on filing of the complaint the learned magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (2) thereafter while acting under section 202 of the Code the learned magistrate directed the Station House Officer of police station Kalkaji ...
Mithlesh Kumar Vs. Subhadra Devi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT184; 1986(11)DRJ185
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) This petition under the provisions of sub-Section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute passed by Smt. Marnta Sehgal, Additional Rent Controller Delhi.(2) The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act claiming eviction of her tenant Shri Mithlesh Kumar (petitioner before me). The details of accommodation given in para 8 of the eviction petition are one room shown red bound in the plan attached. In para 18(a), it is stated that the premises in dispute was let out to the respondent for residence purposes and the petitioner is the owner of the premises thereof, that the petitioner is now residing in Village and intends to shift to Delhi and she has no reasonably suitable accommodation to live in Delhi, that as such the petitioner requires the premises for her own use for her own use for occ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »