Delhi Court July 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 Central Excise Vs. Shree Durga Glass (P) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC707Tri(Delhi)
1. Five applications Nos. 28 to 32/1986-A for condonation of delay in relation to five appeals Nos. E. 2718-2722/85-A filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, with M/s. Shree Durga Glass (P) Ltd., Orissa as respondents, came up before Special Bench 'A' consisting of Members Shri Harish Chander and Shri V.P.Gulati. In separate orders bearing Nos. Misc. Order No. 99 to 103/1986-A, the two learned Members expressed different opinions on the applications. Member Shri Harish Chander held that the five applications for condonation of delay should be dismissed as being hit by limitation (and consequently the corresponding appeals and stay applications should also be dismissed).Member Shri Gulati however held that the delay in all the five cases should be condoned.2. In view of the difference in opinion, these matters have been referred to me as President for decision in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, read with the proviso to Sub-sec...
Shanti Devi Vs. Bhan Raj and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-26-1986
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi276; 1988(15)DRJ409; 1990(18)DRJ7; 1988(19)LC302(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This second appeal is by the owner landlady of certain premises in Chawri Bazar, Delhi.(2) The landlady filed a suit for possession against legal representatives of her tenant. Kedar Nath was the tenant. He died leaving behind his daughter-in-law and grand children (some of them minors), who are the defendants, as his legal heirs. The wife of Kedar Nath and his son Nathu Ram pre-deceased him. He had no other legal heir. The suit was filed on the basis that the defendants could not inherit the tenancy as Kedar Nath was a statutory tenant. The suit which was filed on 2-3-1976 was dismissed on 8-10-1982. First appeal against the judgment and decree was filed on 2-6-1973, almost two months after the period of limitation. The appeal was dismissed being barred by limitation by the impugned order. I will note that earlier also the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents which was dismissed as far back as in 1975 wherein the court held that the respondents were t...
Timblo and Timblo Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC27
1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they were taken up together. The appeals have been filed under the following circumstances: 2. The appellants are manufacturers of collapsible tubes falling under Item No. 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants clear the plain tubes on payment of duty and thereafter subject the goods to the process of lacquering and/or printing. The appellants furnished price list showing therein the price of the plain tubes. In the remarks column, they have adverted to the printing, lacquering, etc. The Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellants to score the remarks and hence they were scored. The appellants submit that they have not suppressed any fact and have intimated the Department the nature of the activities including that of printing and lacquering. The invoices have been checked by the Department and the relevant returns have been filed.While so, a show caus...
CamlIn Private Ltd. Vs. National Pencil Industries
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)ARBLR285(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT347; 1986RLR642
D.K. Kapar, C.J.(1) We have heard learned counsel on the question of interim stay. Learned counsel for the respondent urges that no interim stay should be granted especially as the same has been disallowed by the learned Single Judge, and even the Suit was held to bs not maintainable under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We have given anxious consideration to the various submissions made and are also conscious of the fact that this interim order will ensure only during the pendency of the appeal. (2) However, we are largely induced to pass the order which we propose to pass, on a comparison of the products which are the subject-matter of the litigation between the parties. We have before us cartons in which Camlin Flora pencils and National Flora pencils are marketed. We have also the contents of these packages which consist of pencils, which to the naked eye appear almost exactly similar both in appearance and design. The significant fact concerning the two cartons, i...
Collector of Customs Vs. Dura Foam Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC44
1. Question involved in this appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is the classification of automatic circular stacking and splitting machine. This machine has been described in the bill of entry filed by the respondents as 'Foam Cutting Machine'. The original authority has assessed it under Tariff Heading 84.59(1) as a machine having an individual function not elsewhere specified. The respondents herein, however, have claimed the assessment under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) of CTA 1975 which claim has been upheld in the order-in-appeal.2. It is the contention of the respondents that the imported machine manufactures commodities inasmuch as by cutting the foam blocks, the imported machine was making those blocks marketable. By the process of cutting these foam blocks, foam mattresses and foam cushions as such were being manufactured. Without the operation of this machine on the foam blocks such blo...
income-tax Officer Vs. H.S. Tiagi
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD449(Delhi)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AAC has erred in directing the ITO to allow interest under Section 214 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee on the refund of excess amount of tax deducted at source from his dividend income on shares.The short contention of the learned departmental representative is that the learned AAC has erred in directing that the interest be paid by the ITO to the assessee under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of tax deducted at source aggregating to Rs. 4,476 of which Rs. 4,130 became refundable on the completion of the assessment.According to the learned departmental representative, Section 214 does not provide for the payment of interest in respect of tax deducted at source. It deals with the payment of interest by the Government in case advance tax paid is found to be more than the assessed tax. In the present case, there was no advance tax paid and so the question of the advance tax exceeding...
D.P. Guglani Vs. Associated Traders and Engineers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT298
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner was employed as a Clerk with the respondent Management of M/s Associated Traders & Engineers Limited at a monthly salary of Rs. 110.00 from the year 1963. He was served with the transfer order on 13th October 1981 transferring him to Hyderabad. The petitioner challenged the transfer order by of & suit in the court of Sub- Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. Along with the suit he made an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code praying for the state of the transfer order. Since the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi refused to stay the transfer order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Delhi which was also rejected. Challenging this order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi the petitioner filed a revision petition (C.R. 1009/83) in this Court. Along with the revision petition, an application for stay of the transfer order was also filed and this Court on 19th January 1984 passed the follo...
Bishamber Dayal Badri Prasad Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD279a(Delhi)
1. The assessee by its present appeal challenges the first appellate order dated 29-2-1984, of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, for the assessment year 1980-81, on the following ground : That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,580 for the interest.2. The assessee is a registered firm by status and its accounting period was the year ending 31-1-1980. One of the partners, i.e., Shri Dwarka Prasad was having a debit balance of Rs. 97,237 in the assessee's account. The assessee had secured interest bearing loans from banks. In these circumstances, the. learned IAC made a disallowance at 15 per cent on average debit balance debited at the figure mentioned above. The addition thus made was of Rs. 14,588.3. The addition was contested by the assessee, Shri B.K. Gupta, the learned authorised representative before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that out of the total withdra...
Jindal Refrigerations Vs. Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marke ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT259
H.C. Goel, J. (1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, (for short the Act), praying that the matters in dispute as stated in the petition be referred to the arbitration of the sole arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the arbitration agreement dated August 30, 1978 as entered into between the parties. The petition has been contested by the respondent. The following issues were framed : 1. Whether there is a subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties as alleged by the plaintiff? 2.Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the application 3.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from seeking the relief under the agreement dated August 30, 1978 as alleged in para 3 of preliminary objections 4.Whether the application is premature (Onus on parties). Findings : Issue No. 1 (2) A copy of the agreement dated August 29. 1978 (Ex. P 1) has been duly admitted by Mr Amarjit Singh, counsel for the respondent. A perusal...
Vidya Bhushan Vs. State of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-23-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT280
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) The petitioner, Vidya Bhushan, seeks bail in the case Fir No. 26/86 under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code of police station Farash Bazar. Delhi. Jagram is first informant and an eye witness in this case and according to him when be was going towards Ramlila Ground, Jawahar Nagar be saw the petitioner coming from the side of one temple along with Rajesh alias Pappu, who is the son of the maternal uncle of the petitioner and Madhu Sudan alias Tittu, both residents of Mohalla Guriai and that all the above mentioned three persons including the petitioner were chasing Trilok Chand Singhal resident of the same mohalla, where the occurrence took place. It is further stated that these persons including the petitioner while chasing Trilok Chand Singhal were heard saying that the deceased should not be left alive and thereafter these accused persons stabbed Trilok Chand Singhal deceased on the back with knives whereupon the deceased fell down in front of the house of Sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »